Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Council Tax

David Evennett: What the average band D council tax was in London boroughs in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 2005–06.

Phil Woolas: The average band D two-adult council tax bill in London boroughs was £651 in 1997–98 and £1,162 in 2005–06.

David Evennett: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that there is great anger in my borough of Bexley at the increases over the past eight years, with another one to come in April? Families and pensioners have been hit hard by those increases, and in addition there is the very unpopular Olympic levy. How does he justify those rises?

Phil Woolas: I advise the House that in the same period, the central Government grant to local authorities increased by some 78.5 per cent. in cash terms, representing more than 38 per cent. in real terms. Indeed, the figures for the hon. Gentleman's own local authority for the coming two years show grant increases, including in the dedicated schools budget, of 5.6 and 4.9 per cent.—generous figures, I believe.

Andrew Love: Is not the real problem that the unified business rate has been held to the rate of inflation over the past eight or nine years? Does the Minister agree that the business community needs to make a greater contribution to the provision of local services, and that it is time that it did so?

Phil Woolas: I remind the House that the Valuation Office Agency undertook a very successful revaluation of businesses that resulted in a revenue-neutral increase in income from non-domestic business rates. This issue is of course being considered by the Lyons review of local authority funding, and we look forward to Sir Michael's recommendations.

Sarah Teather: Since he took up office, the Deputy Prime Minister has earned five times as much as the average Londoner, but his council tax bill—when he eventually paid it—was less than half their average bill. Does the Minister think that fair?

Phil Woolas: Given the improvement in London's public services, including in the hon. Lady's own borough, and the extra investment that this Government have been able to make, including in her own borough, all as a result of the successful economic policies pursued by this Government, she should be congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister and not seeking to score points.

Jacqui Lait: The London Mayor's levy on council tax payers has more than doubled since he was first elected. According to the Government, he and the Greater London authority were meant to cost Londoners thruppence a week. Who is to blame—the Labour Government or the Labour Mayor?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Lady seems to have forgotten that it was the people of London who voted to establish the GLA, after the previous Conservative Government had abolished the Greater London council without so much as a by your leave. Subsequently, the Mayor of London has been re-elected. So her argument is not with me but with the people of Greater London.

Social Housing

John Robertson: What assessment his Department has made of the impact of right to buy on the provision of social housing by local authorities.

John Prescott: We have taken action through the Housing Act 2004 to reduce the abuse of right to buy, and we have cut the discounts for 41 housing-pressured areas. As a result, total sales have fallen, but we remain committed to helping people into home ownership. New opportunities are being offered through our homebuy schemes, and the provision of social rented housing is increasing. This will be a priority in the current spending review.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. While I accept that the right to buy has been very important to a lot of people—not least to some in my constituency—does he agree that local authorities need to provide social housing as well as making houses available through the right to buy? Is it not time that we looked at the rules governing social housing and helped those councils that want to supply good housing for people who cannot afford to buy?

John Prescott: As I said, the action that we took in dealing with abuse of the right to buy led eventually to a reduction in the number of people buying through that process, particularly in the London area. Through homebuy schemes, we are offering other opportunities to 300,000 more tenants, but we are constantly reviewing the situation. My hon. Friend must recognise that our decent homes programme has benefited more than 1 million people. Many people in his constituency will have benefited from that programme, as well as from the provision of housing in the public and private sectors.

Andrew MacKay: I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is in favour of encouraging a property-owning democracy. If so, does he agree with me that housing association tenants have been badly discriminated against and should be given the right to buy their homes?

John Prescott: I think that tenants of housing associations already have the right to buy, but to extend that to the right to acquire would cost around £1 billion more. We must make a judgment about the best use of public money. Tenants have the right to buy, but to extend that to the right to acquire would be expensive and also create financial problems for housing associations, as the previous Tory Administration noted, which was why they failed to implement that change.

Christine Russell: My right hon. Friend will know from his local links that the social housing stock of the city of Chester was decimated by the right to buy. As a result the average house price in Chester is now £180,000, which is 10 times the salary of a newly qualified nurse or teacher. Can he give me an assurance that in the next round of the comprehensive spending review his Department will recognise the housing needs of people on relatively low wages who live in housing hot spots in the north? We have problems in the north—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister probably has the gist of that question.

John Prescott: I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. She will know from the Chancellor's pre-Budget report that he said that greater priority would be given to social housing, and we await the Budget.

Alistair Burt: The Deputy Prime Minister is right to recognise the failure to deliver new social housing under his Government, as the number of completions in 2004–05 was barely 56 per cent. of the completions 10 years ago under the Conservative Government. If the failure to provide social housing is of such concern, why have he and his Department stood back and done nothing to address the allegations that registered social landlords in Liverpool have, over several years, been voiding and tinning up good quality homes, contributing to the dereliction of areas and encouraging the demolition, not refurbishment of properties, which is at the heart of the growing resentment in Liverpool at the progress of the pathfinder programme? Why has he done nothing to address that failure by social landlords?

John Prescott: It is interesting to note that the Conservatives have discovered Liverpool again, perhaps to try to obtain some electoral representation in the area—because they have none at present. Let us be clear about the position. We made a judgment in 1997 that we should put more resources into improving 2 million homes that had been left in less than decent conditions by the previous Administration, who—six years before—had halved the amount of money invested in housing. We have improved more than 1 million houses. They may not be new houses, but people who live in them appreciate the new kitchens, bathrooms and central heating, which make a difference to their quality of life. The right-to-buy programme was at the expense of millions of tenants who saw the standard of their houses falling. We have been correcting that.

Affordable Housing (Birmingham)

Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement on the availability of affordable housing in Birmingham.

Yvette Cooper: The Housing Corporation has provided some £80 million for new social housing over this two-year period, which is a substantial increase for Birmingham compared with previous years and, in addition, a growing proportion of new affordable homes has come from section 106 agreements. We will announce the next allocations from the Housing Corporation shortly.

Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that three quarters of council lettings are to homeless people, compared with a third in 1997. Likewise, housing association tenancies are overwhelmed by homeless and clearance cases, leaving little availability for others in housing distress on waiting lists. However, thousands more homes are due to be demolished because of a lack of money to bring them up to a decent standard. The Government made £650 million available for stock transfer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I encourage the hon. Lady to formulate a question out of all this?

Lynne Jones: What does my hon. Friend say to those tenants who ask why that money cannot be made available to invest in council housing and building new homes?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have made money available for Birmingham. We have increased the resources available directly to Birmingham and we have also made options available for it to increase its housing to the decent homes standard. I know that the recent independent report by Anne Power on the approach taken by Birmingham city council was critical, and I am also concerned that the council's approach to pushing up the cost of land for housing associations also raises questions about the ability to deliver new social housing. We are investigating that.

John Hemming: Does the Minister not agree that, if the council were allowed to spend more than 25 per cent. of the right-to-buy proceeds on building new affordable properties, that could have a serious effect on reducing homelessness?

Yvette Cooper: As I have said, we have doubled the resources going into new social housing since 1997, and we are increasing new social house building by 50 per cent. over the next few years. We are raising additional resources from a range of different routes to invest in social housing, but the hon. Gentleman should raise with Birmingham city council the need for it to work with housing associations to increase support for new social housing, because we will only get the additional social housing that we need if the council works with housing associations, rather than working against them.

Richard Burden: My hon. Friend mentioned the independent commission of inquiry into council housing in Birmingham, chaired by Professor Anne Power. Is she aware of the commission's latest report, which emphasises not only that, if Birmingham is to tackle its housing agenda, it needs to develop a much more vibrant, community-based housing approach, but that, crucially, since the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives took over the council, the neighbourhood agenda is now slipping
	"a long way down the Council's list of priorities and there are many unresolved funding and staffing problems over devolution, regeneration, neighbourhood renewal, neighbourhood wardens and other local initiatives"?
	Does she agree that if Birmingham is to tackle its housing agenda, the council must learn to let go?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. In fact, there should be strong support for community-led programmes to devolve much of the decision making to local neighbourhoods, as he and the Anne Power report have advocated, and Opposition Members should ask some questions of Birmingham city council.

Caroline Spelman: Great cities, such as Birmingham, have a regenerated heart—the magnificent Bullring, with its café culture and its luxury apartments—but, sadly, most first-time buyers simply cannot afford to live there. In the face of the decline in the number of first-time buyers in this country—from 500,000 in 1997, down to 320,000 last year—the Government are proposing to help just 100,000 of them with shared equity in the lifetime of this Parliament. Why such poverty of ambition?

Yvette Cooper: I find the hon. Lady's question astonishing. We are proposing very strong and ambitious programmes to build more houses, which this country needs. In fact, 190,000 new households are being created each year, and we are building only about 160,000 new homes. We need to build more new homes, including in the west midlands, but she is opposing new development in her constituency and arguing that it should not take place there but elsewhere. If Opposition Members keep opposing new homes in their constituencies, we will never get the new homes that first-time buyers and the next generation need. That is the challenge to improving affordability.

Contingency Planning

Patrick Mercer: What discussions he has had with the Home Office on improvements and alterations to resilience structures following Exercise Osiris 2 in September 2003.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Exercise Osiris 2 allowed London's emergency and health services to practise their response to a chemical attack on the tube. Home Office and other Ministers were closely involved in the subsequent analysis of lessons, which were incorporated into our emergency planning programme and contributed significantly, with other action and exercises, to building the quality of preparedness that we saw demonstrated in London on 7 July last year.

Patrick Mercer: May I thank the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for making briefings available to me? During Exercise Osiris, it was made clear that there would be further exercises, involving not just the emergency services, but the public. Since then, the tube has been attacked successfully, there has been a failed attack on the tube and I believe that there has been at least one foiled attack on the tube, yet there have been no further exercises on that scale, involving the public. Why?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the first instance lessons from Osiris 2 have been learned on procuring new equipment, amending procedures and introducing new techniques. A number of major exercises have taken place subsequently, not just in London, but in Newcastle and Birmingham, and we had Operation Atlantic Blue in conjunction with the US and Canada in January this year. Three major counter-terrorism exercises are held in the UK every year, as well as smaller regional exercises and table-top exercises. There is an ongoing examination of our contingency planning and preparedness. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman received a briefing earlier this week. We will be happy to give him more in the future to ensure that he is kept up to speed.

Chris Bryant: One of the best groups at extracting people from underground is the Mines Rescue Service, based in the Rhondda, yet it was not involved in discussions about Osiris, and nor were its services requested following 7 July. May I urge my hon. Friend to consider how the Mines Rescue Service could be used in such events?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I hear exactly what my hon. Friend says and his suggestion, which will be taken on board by officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The experience and expertise of the Mines Rescue Service staff can be put to good use. We have already amended our techniques on rescuing people from deep areas and, as a result, the 7/7 exercise was a success. I am sure that we will be in touch with the Mines Rescue Service in due course.

Regional Government

Philip Davies: What powers and responsibilities the Government have transferred to regional assemblies since 2004.

David Miliband: The eight regional assemblies outside London were each formally designated as the regional planning body in their region under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. We have accepted the recommendation of the Barker review on housing supply that regional housing boards be merged with them.

Philip Davies: I thank the Minister for that reply. Clearly, the Government have learned nothing from the referendum in the north-east on regional assemblies. The Yorkshire and Humber assembly has decided that Bradford district needs 30,000 houses built over the next 10 to 15 years. Why should an unelected, unaccountable and unwanted body make such a decision for our area? Should not it be left to the local council to decide such things?

David Miliband: What I should do is commend to the hon. Gentleman the words of the Conservative leader of the East of England regional assembly who says that regional assemblies are essential for "effective regional planning", the provision of a democratic mandate in the regions and
	"effective scrutiny of other bodies".
	Some 187 Conservative councillors are on those regional assemblies. The hon. Gentleman should be saying that they are doing a good job.

Disabled Facilities Grant

Paul Rowen: When he plans to introduce the recommendations of the recent review of the disabled facilities grant.

Yvette Cooper: We published the report on the disabled facilities grant programme in October 2005. We have implemented one of the central recommendations already and are considering the other recommendations at the moment.

Paul Rowen: Does the Minister accept that the failure to increase the grant from the current level of £25,000 to the £50,000 recommended in the report is causing real hardship and means that many people who need disabled facilities cannot access them?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we increased funding for the disabled facilities grant from £57 million in 1997 to £121 million for next year. That includes a 16 per cent. increase for Rochdale for next year. We are increasing the resources available for the disabled facilities grant. We have in particular exempted disabled children from the means test. That is the right priority: to recognise the particular needs of families with disabled children. We are considering the further recommendations.

Derek Wyatt: Swale borough council's grant for disabled facilities is spent on 6 April. If there is an emergency in the next financial year, we have no money to give to disabled people. Is there a way in which my hon. Friend can call in Swale borough council to ask how it spends the money and spreads it out?

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to look into the spending by Swale borough council as I do not know the details. However, as I said, we have increased the resources available for local councils because it is important to support disabled families, which can face great difficulties with making major adaptations to their homes.

First-time Buyers

Robert Flello: What steps are being taken to help first-time buyers in Stoke-on-Trent; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: We have made available over £5 billion of funding for investment to support key housing priorities, including support for low-cost home ownership. The new open market homebuy scheme will enable an additional 20,000 households nationally into home ownership by 2010. In my hon. Friend's constituency, Mercian housing association is the homebuy zone agent.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he look carefully with his colleagues in the Department at the further help that can be given to housing in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire through the RENEW north Staffordshire programme? I hope that up to £70 million will come into north Staffordshire, and I urge my hon. Friends to make sure that we receive the full amount, as anything less will harm the peripheral estates. I would be delighted to show my right hon. Friend around those estates so that he can see their needs.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is comprehensive as well as energetic in his pursuit of this case. He has already had meetings with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) and myself, and I understand that the papers on the decision are heading towards the desk of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. In due course, that decision will be made.

Homelessness

Justine Greening: If he will make a statement on the extent of homelessness among ex-servicemen.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister works closely with the Ministry of Defence to prevent homelessness and to support related projects involving ex-services groups. Evidence suggests that the number and proportion of people sleeping rough who have served in the armed forces is reducing. The ex-services action group on homelessness has commissioned further research and interim findings will be available in the summer.

Justine Greening: I thank the Minister for his response, but does he agree that in light of the number of armed service personnel serving in Iraq this is a growing problem, despite the evidence that it may be reducing? The Government must pay close attention to any studies that are undertaken to make sure that servicemen suffering from mental health problems in particular receive the support that they deserve when they come home.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Under homelessness legislation, since July 2002, applicants seeking help from a housing authority who are unintentionally homeless and vulnerable as a result of serving in Her Majesty's forces are in a priority needs category, and are owed a main homelessness duty. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministry of Defence have commissioned research from King's College, London on the extent, causes, impact and costs of rough sleeping and homelessness among ex-service personnel, as well as on ways in which that can be prevented. Interim reports are due later this month and in October, and we will look in particular at the issue of mental health.

Council Tax

Robert Wilson: What representations on council tax he has received from pensioner groups in the last 12 months.

Phil Woolas: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May we have less noise? These questions are every bit as important as any other questions.

Phil Woolas: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has identified eight written representations from groups exclusively representing pensioners on council tax in the past 12 months. Issues raised include the effect of council tax bills on pensioners; council tax benefit; and the reform of the local government finance system. I met the National Pensioners Convention on 6 December 2005.

Robert Wilson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Why was a £200 discount essential for pensioners last year, but completely unnecessary this year? Was it because last year was a general election year?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the £200 announcement was made in last year's Budget. The Opposition opposed many other measures that were put in place for pensioners and the low paid. I remind the House, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that nearly 20 per cent. of council tax is paid through the council tax benefit system.

Infrastructure Funding (Milton Keynes)

Phyllis Starkey: What funding his Department has made available for infrastructure in the Milton Keynes growth area over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is making available over £73 million additional infrastructure funding, including funding improvements to the hospital, railway station and motorway junction. We are also supporting Milton Keynes' proposals to develop a tariff further to support new infrastructure in the area.

Phyllis Starkey: I thank the Minister on behalf of my constituents and all the residents of Milton Keynes for that statement. Will she comment on the fact that some people in the area, including the Opposition, are happy to accept the infrastructure but continue to oppose the proposed housing?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We need good infrastructure to support new homes, but we must also recognise that we have to deliver the new homes that the next generation needs; otherwise, problems with overcrowding and homelessness will grow, and there will be huge and unfair pressures on first-time buyers. That is why we support new homes and infrastructure development, in Milton Keynes and across the country.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Tim Farron: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 March.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Tim Farron: Homelessness in south Lakeland rose by 85 per cent. last year, and average local house prices are 15 times as high as average local incomes. Will the Prime Minister act swiftly to prevent the compulsory right to buy of shared ownership schemes, to ensure that more affordable homes can be built, and that they remain affordable?

Tony Blair: That is precisely why we want to encourage more house building in areas where there is pressure on housing, especially for young couples trying to own their first home, and why we want to encourage shared equity schemes. As my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said in recent weeks, it is therefore important that we continue with the programme, which means we invest in housing and increase its availability. However, we also need more imaginative ways to ensure that people, and especially young people, are able to own a home for the first time.

Tom Harris: May I inform the Prime Minister that if he wants to get in touch with me for any reason over the next few weeks, I shall be on paid paternity leave for two weeks from around the beginning of June? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] If he tries to phone me at home and I am not in, I shall probably be at the bank, cashing in a baby bond. What plans do the Government have to support new parents further, and does my right hon. Friend expect cross-party support for such measures this time?

Tony Blair: I extend my warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend. The measures that we took in respect of paternity leave go alongside our massive extensions to maternity pay and maternity leave, and baby bonds. Like the children's tax credit, they are all examples of this Government's commitment to families and to balancing work and family life. I am only sorry that those measures were opposed in their entirety by the Opposition.

David Cameron: The outgoing chief executive of the NHS said last night that the service was going through a "bad patch". Does the Prime Minister agree?

Tony Blair: It is very important that we get hospitals with financial deficits back into surplus. However, we must be clear about this matter, and a review of the past few years shows the difference that investment and reform have made. Under this Government, waiting lists have fallen by something like 400,000. Whereas almost 300,000 people used to wait 15 months for their operations in 1997, no one now waits more than six months.

David Cameron: The fact is that the deficit has trebled, wards are being closed and, in my constituency, mental health consultants are being sacked. If everything is going so well, why did the Prime Minister have to sack the NHS chief executive?

Tony Blair: Nigel Crisp gave his reasons for standing down in his statement yesterday, but let me say that he was a superb public servant who, in the past few years, has overseen a transformation of the health service. Moreover, we should get the question of deficits in context. The total deficit is less than 1 per cent. of the NHS annual bill, but the most important fact is that 50 per cent. of that deficit is in 6 per cent. of trusts. It is true that there is a substantial financial deficit in the right hon. Gentleman's area—[Interruption.] Yes, but there have also been massive real-terms increases in the amount of money going in—money that he voted against. That is why we have to have proper systems of financial transparency. We are putting in a huge investment, but it is for local hospital organisations to make sure that they balance the books. In fact, the majority of them are doing just that.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister tries to fudge the issue of whether Sir Nigel was sacked, but last night Sir Nigel said that he had wanted to stay for at least another year, and that he wanted to leave when things were "on the up"—something with which I am sure that the Prime Minister feels some sympathy. He also said that the NHS's structural problems were getting worse, that managers were under less pressure to get the finances right, and that financial problems were now being revealed. What responsibility do Ministers take for such matters?

Tony Blair: Ministers are responsible, but both Sir Nigel and Ministers can be extremely proud of the following achievements in the national health service—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear the fact that there are 80,000 more nurses in the national health service and 30,000 more doctors; that waiting for cataract operations is down from two years to three months; that now no one waits for heart operations for more than three months; that cancer deaths are down by 14 per cent., saving 43,000 lives; and that deaths from heart disease are down 30 per cent., saving 83,000 lives. Yes, of course there are problems in our national health service, like any health care system in the world, but if we compare today and the levels of not just funding but achievement with 1997, the issue for the national health service today, in part thanks to what Sir Nigel has done, is how we improve it, not what it used to be in 1997, which was whether we could save it.

David Cameron: In public, the Prime Minister gives us these lists of success; in private, he knows that things are going wrong and is he sacking the chief executive. Is this not just the latest example of mismanagement in the NHS? The Government set up primary care trusts; now they are scrapping half of them. They introduced strategic health authorities; now most of them are going. They have poured money into the NHS, but there is an £800 million deficit and the outgoing chief executive said that things are getting worse, not better. When will Ministers take responsibility for their failures, instead of seeking to blame others?

Tony Blair: Sir Nigel certainly did not say that the national health service is getting worse not better. The national health service, on any basis, as every independent report has shown, is indeed getting better. The reason why I read out the achievements of the past few years is because it used to be the case that literally hundreds of thousands of people waited more than a year on in-patient waiting lists; no one does today. It used to be the case that waiting lists went up every single year; they have fallen by almost 500,000 in the past five or six years. Just today, we are announcing at Barts the largest scheme that is going to mean fantastic opportunities for patients and clinicians throughout that part of London. Every penny piece was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party. So, when he says that the national health service has challenges and issues, of course it does, but no one believes that the national health service is not better today than it was eight or nine years ago, and that is the result of not just investment and reform, but the fact that when he was still advocating the patient's passport to take money out of the NHS, this party stood by the NHS, stood by its values, stood by its principles and will make it better still.

Gordon Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Monday's report by the Sustainable Development Commission highlights clearly that the way forward for the UK's energy demands is through an even greater expansion of renewables and not through a new range of nuclear generation facilities, in relation to which the Commission highlighted that there are waste, cost, security and inflexibility questions still to be answered?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend in part. The part that I agree with is that we certainly do need to make sure that renewable energy forms a larger part of our energy mix and that is what we are committed to. Over the past few years, we have seen an extension in the amount of renewable energy. We have very stringent targets for the expansion of renewable energy in the next few years. But I have to say to him that I still think that there is a major challenge—this is what the energy review will answer in the next few months—as to whether we can really make sure that we meet both our energy needs and our environmental targets without nuclear power in the mix. That is something that we will obviously have to consider over the next few months, but let me just make one thing clear: the Sustainable Development Commission asks whether nuclear power is the answer, but no one has ever said that it is the whole answer. The question is whether it is part of the answer, as part of a sensible and balanced energy mix.

Menzies Campbell: Following that answer, can the Prime Minister tell us why the Government have yet to implement many of the low carbon solutions suggested in the energy White Paper of 2003?

Tony Blair: First, I should say congratulations to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
	We actually are doing many of those things that are low carbon solutions. For example, due to building regulations, even though there is now a debate about whether we should go further, energy efficiency has improved by something like 40 per cent. for new buildings. There is the renewable energy that I was just talking about a moment or two ago. There are all the issues to do with energy efficiency, where again the Government are investing a large sum of money. Our Government are investing about £600 million this year in various forms of clean technology. Of course there are tremendous challenges as our economy grows, but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we will be one of the very few countries in the world to meet their Kyoto targets.

Menzies Campbell: I thank the Prime Minister for his congratulations. He will know that there are increasing doubts about the Government's ability to meet the target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says we must do so; the Department of Trade and Industry says we cannot. Who is right, and who is going to win?

Tony Blair: In the next few months we will publish our proposals to make sure that we can attain that 20 per cent. target. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it is incredibly challenging. Even though the economy has been growing far faster than the level of emissions, it will be highly challenging to meet that target. That should not diminish our pride as a country in having met our Kyoto targets, which were substantial, and in the leadership role that this country is playing round the world in tackling climate change. As he knows, in the end the single biggest thing that we can do, apart from giving leadership in the UK, is to make sure in international terms that America, China and India in particular are all working together.

Miners' Compensation

John Mann: On how many occasions solicitors' costs have been partially refused due to breach of regulation 4 of the conditional fee regulations for miners' hearing loss claims to Government.

Tony Blair: I cannot tell my hon. Friend on exactly how many occasions solicitors' costs have been partially refused due to breach of regulation 4, but we have been able to save substantial sums of money by making sure the regulation is implemented.

John Mann: There is a feeding frenzy over miners' and textile workers' deafness claims, which is even worse than the previous double charging scandal—in this case, with up to six unnecessary deductions by solicitors and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. As Capita tells me that the Government have rightly refused to pay solicitors' costs in over 1,000 of these cases, will the Prime Minister ask the Lord Chancellor to sort out with the Law Society and with Cabinet colleagues how best to claw back costs in every one of those cases, and how to ensure that money wrongly deducted is returned to miners and textile workers?

Tony Blair: In respect of the particular point that my hon. Friend makes, I understand that the issue is being considered by the courts in an appeal due to be heard on 19 June. The general point that my hon. Friend makes is right. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has worked with the Law Society to see that solicitors who have unfairly taken a proportion of miners' compensation repay the money. Many have returned payments and the Law Society has again recently urged those who have not to do so. I know, however, that my hon. Friend would agree that over the past few years, the amount of money that we have managed to pay out to former miners has been enormous—about £3 billion, and it is one way that the Labour Government have been able to repay the debt of gratitude to those people who have worked in such difficult and dangerous conditions for so long in order to supply the country's energy needs.

Engagements

David Evennett: Will the Prime Minister empathise and sympathise with my constituents, who are constantly battling against applications to site mobile phone masts in their streets, outside their houses and outside schools? If he is sympathetic, why did his Government kill the Bill on Friday last, which would have helped to deal with the matter?

Tony Blair: There must be a balance between people's objectives and making sure that we get the facilities that we need. We constantly keep under review the issue as to whether those are safe or not. As far as I am aware, the evidence points clearly and surely to the fact that they are.

Iraq

Harry Cohen: What action is being taken by UK forces in Iraq to end the activities of death squads associated with the Ministry of the Interior or others in authority; and if he will make a statement.

Tony Blair: We are working with the Iraqi Government at the highest level to investigate all allegations and bring to justice any individuals involved in human rights abuses.

Harry Cohen: There were another 18 grisly murders on a minibus this morning. Has the Prime Minister taken into account the comments of John Pace, until recently the UN's head of human rights for Iraq, that most of the killings in Baghdad are carried out by agents of the Ministry of the Interior, and that that Ministry is a rogue element in the Government? General Casey, who is effectively running Iraq, says complacently and perhaps deliberately that this is just a long-term problem. Surely British troops were not sent to fight and die for such death squads' perversion of democracy.

Tony Blair: No, they certainly were not, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that the very reason why these issues are being investigated is our insistence that they should be investigated—a very different situation from that which obtained under Saddam Hussein, when there was no investigation and it was indeed the policy of the Government to kill, abuse and torture people. My hon. Friend asks why our troops are there; they are there for a very simple reason. They are there under a UN mandate with the consent of the first ever democratically elected Iraqi Government, and they are there to allow the wishes and will of 11 million Iraqis who have voted in an election for the first time to have the democracy that they want. That is why they are there.

Engagements

James Brokenshire: Rainham in my constituency has been identified as a site to sift, screen and process rubble and other debris in the event of a serious terrorist attack in the capital. While I accept the essential need to have such plans in place, does the Prime Minister recognise that it will not assist the redevelopment and regeneration of this part of the Thames Gateway if this use is retained and that a review is needed?

Tony Blair: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that, for obvious reasons, I do not know about the particular application in his area. I am happy to look into it and I shall correspond with him about it.

Barbara Follett: With the United Kingdom currently 51ston the women's representation league table, does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to get more women into this House, and particularly Labour women? Will he do all that he can to facilitate that?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I think that we can be proud of what has been achieved since 1997, particularly on the Labour Benches, with the additional representation of women, but we recognise, as I hope all parties do, that we need to do much more.

David Cameron: The drought in east Africa threatens millions of people with famine and starvation. We welcome the Government's rapid response and the announcement of the extra money that the Minister concerned has made. What does the Prime Minister think are the practical obstacles now standing in the way of getting food and water to those in need?

Tony Blair: First, it is correct that the UK, I think after the US, is the second largest donor. It is sometimes worth pointing out the contribution that both we and our main ally make to overseas aid. The main obstacles are obviously the difficulties of infrastructure and transport. That is why we are working very hard on making sure that the money that we give is properly used and ordered not just to buy what is necessary, but to facilitate its transport.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister will agree that in Africa, all too often, drought leads to starvation because of the absence of development and the presence of corruption. We must help developing countries to trade their way out of poverty. With that in mind, will it be possible to use the G6 talks this weekend to ensure that trade talks go forward with the needs of Africa at their forefront?

Tony Blair: They certainly should do. The G6 talks are happening, but we are also honoured and delighted to have in this country for a state visit President Lula of Brazil. Brazil obviously occupies a very important position in the world trade talks, as part of the G20 group of nations. The main area of discussion that I will have with President Lula tomorrow will be whether it is possible to put together a far more ambitious plan for the trade talks. That should obviously include, as it is supposed to be a development round, a specific package for Africa and the very poorest countries, but it would be far easier if that package were located in a general ambitious trade round that took down trade barriers right around the world. That would obviously be of advantage to the poorest African countries, but in addition, it would be of advantage to countries such as Brazil and Britain.

Dawn Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that, as today is international women's day, it is firmly marked on the calendar, and that we should ensure that young people are taught about the day, when we should have a celebration? Although more people on the Labour Benches will be part of that celebration, as we have more women in Parliament, should we not also look forward to the Opposition making sure that there is further gender equality in the House?

Tony Blair: I am not generally in favour of greater numbers of Conservative MPs, but certainly a greater balance between men and women would be a good idea.

Geoffrey Cox: Does the Prime Minister still believe, as he told west country farming communities in the midst of the foot and mouth crisis, that supermarkets have those communities in an arm lock? If he still believes that, does he support yesterday's call by the Federation of Small Businesses for an investigation into the practices of supermarkets by the Competition Commission?

Tony Blair: I have not had an opportunity to study that recommendation, but I sympathise with the position in which farmers find themselves, which is why we established the code of practice, particularly when they are trying to restructure their own businesses. In meetings in the past few months, we have looked carefully at how we can respond to that concern in a way that is consistent with the interests of consumers, too. The code of practice should be adhered to, and I know that many parts of the farming community believe that it has been broken. We will carefully examine the matter, and if necessary, we will take further action.

Madeleine Moon: Women in my constituency face regular violence from partners who abuse them, and they are often forced into refuges. The Bridgend refuge is in financial crisis, and it needs additional funding to find homes for women and to give women the opportunity to find stability for themselves and their families. Will the Prime Minister look at finding ways to support women who experience violence, so that they are not faced with homelessness or living with fear at home?

Tony Blair: I cannot comment on the funding of the particular service in my hon. Friend's area, but her general point is absolutely right. We are putting a great deal of money into supporting work on domestic violence, and we have established domestic violence courts. Women are more willing and able to come forward and report domestic violence, and the police and the courts treat such matters much more seriously. As we roll out domestic violence courts across the country, I hope that those benefits will become more widely spread.

Peter Tapsell: Now that the Prime Minister has used up all mortal excuses for his folly in invading Iraq and is relying on divine guidance, a factor which was oddly omitted from the dodgy dossier, will he tell us which archangel is now beckoning him towards southern Afghanistan?

Tony Blair: So what is the answer? [Laughter.] I will tell the hon. Gentleman what makes me committed to British troops in Afghanistan. On 11 September, there was the worst terrorist act that the world has ever seen in which 3,000 people died. That terrorist act was done out of Afghanistan, and it was run by al-Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan and supported by the Taliban. [Interruption.] I am proud of the part that we played in removing the Taliban, and I am proud of the fact that 6 million Afghans got the chance to vote. [Interruption.] Yes; and 12 million Iraqis got that chance, too. I would have thought that everyone, whatever their belief or faith, would stand up for democracy against terrorism.

John Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as me about unbalanced reports that misrepresent the energy debate? Does he agree that we need a balanced debate about a balanced energy policy?

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Although, as he rightly implies, voices have been raised strongly against nuclear power in recent days, many people, including, for example, the Energy Research Centre, believe that it is important that nuclear power is part of the energy mix. We need a clear-sighted debate on the energy security needs of our country in a world in which security of energy supply is becoming increasingly difficult. We also need to take a hard-headed look at not only what we want to happen on greenhouse gas emissions, but what can practically be done in order to reduce them, and we should take the necessary decisions on that basis. As my hon. Friend has said, it is important to recognise that many sensible people who have looked at the issue over a significant period of time believe that nuclear power should be part of the mix.

Martin Horwood: Given the Government's new-found interest in localism and the fact that children's hospital services in Cheltenham are becoming less local, our ambulance trust less local, our police force less local, our primary care trust less local, our fire control centre less local, our planning powers less local, and even our local authority less local, do the Government have plans to make anything at all in my constituency more local, or are they merely saying one thing and doing the precise opposite?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the police, for example, necessarily become less local if the restructuring of forces is combined with a greater emphasis on community policing. Most people do not regard the police in their area as part of an overall police authority—they look at the local service. Likewise with schools, hospitals or health care services, people look at their local ward and community beyond the structures that politicians often talk about, which often do not mean a great deal to people.

Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Sunderland we have an excellent system of tertiary education which has been painstakingly built up over the past 20 years or so, and that there is a fear that foundation schools will demand their own sixth forms, thereby undermining what has been achieved? What can he say to reassure City of Sunderland college and others that that will not happen?

Tony Blair: As I know that my hon. Friend would accept, the provision of education in Sunderland has benefited enormously from what the Government have done over the past few years. The sixth-form college has been a success, too. I very much hope that the proposals in the schools White Paper and the Education and Inspections Bill, far from undermining that success, will assist that process. After all, we have made great progress in our schools in the past eight or nine years. It is important that we build on that, and that is the purpose of the Bill.

William Cash: Does the Prime Minister accept that the picture of the health service that he painted does not apply in my constituency? In the first place, there has been the extraordinary elevation of Sir Nigel Crisp to a peerage for what appears to have been a pretty appalling record. This afternoon, I am seeing all the primary care trust chairmen from Staffordshire. There is uproar about hygiene and cleanliness at Staffordshire general hospital, an £18 million deficit in North Staffordshire, and a deeply unpopular ambulance service merger.

Tony Blair: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we must have a sense of balance about the picture in the national health service today. Of course there are major challenges—MRSA is one, and the continuing financial deficits another. I think that if he were to talk to the people in the national health service in his area, he would find that they accept that there has none the less been immense progress over the past few years. Many people in his constituency—hundreds of them—used to wait months and months for operations; now, they have maximum waiting times far below anything that we inherited in 1997. There have been huge real-terms increases in funding. In the end, whatever amount of money we put into the national health service there has to be proper financial transparency. The new system that is being introduced is exposing the financial deficits and creating financial transparencies in the health service. It has to be dealt with, but it is being dealt with in the context of a national health service that is improving year by year.

Stephen McCabe: May I give a general welcome to the proposals to improve youth services? When talking to constituents, I have been struck by how many people favour the idea of some kind of national youth volunteer service. When will that be up and running, and how do I get Hall Green youngsters involved?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. As a result of the work of the Russell commission, the charity set up to implement its recommendations will be launched in early May, with the first round of volunteering opportunities becoming available in the summer. We have allocated approximately £100 million for that. It will allow literally thousands of young people to take part in youth volunteering and I believe that that is a good thing. It is not possible to go back to the old days of national service, but it is possible to provide young people with the opportunity to put something back into the community and gain greater experience of different walks and sides of life. The programme will be exciting and I am sure that people in my hon. Friend's constituency and others will take advantage of it.

Alex Salmond: Has the Prime Minister seen the front-page story in The   Scotsman today? It carries the allegation that the reason for allowing cover-up and criminality in the presentation of fingerprint evidence in Scotland was to protect the forensic evidence used to secure the Lockerbie conviction. Given that the McKie case has already resulted in a wrongful conviction for murder, nine years of personal anguish for the police officer whose fingerprints were wrongly identified and a cloud of suspicion over the Scottish Criminal Record Office, will the Prime Minister join former Solicitor-Generals, Lord Advocates and every Opposition party in Scotland in calling for an independent judicial inquiry so that justice can be seen to be done?

Tony Blair: Before I respond to that, I should look carefully at the story on the front page of The Scotsman. I have not seen it.

Points of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House a few moments ago when he stated that nobody waited more than six months for an operation. The NHS website today shows that scores of patients are waiting more than six months for an operation. Will you advise me about how the matter might be clarified?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is to pursue the matter through applying for an Adjournment debate.

Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Exactly one month ago, at Deputy Prime Minister's questions, I had to chase the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for an answer for the people who suffered when a tornado struck Birmingham. They are still waiting for that answer. The city council leader and I wrote immediately to the Minister for Local Government, yet we have still not received a reply. What other measures can we take, through the means at our disposal, to prevent questions from being ignored at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, that is not a matter on which the Chair can adjudicate. However, the hon. Lady has had an opportunity, in effect, to put the matter directly to the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that, between them, the matter can be sorted out satisfactorily as soon as possible.

Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance (Information)

Anne Main: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require any medical practitioner who diagnoses a terminal illness in a patient to inform the Secretary of State; to require the Secretary of State to give the patient information about his entitlement to, and a claim form for, attendance allowance and disability living allowance; and for connected purposes.
	I should like to outline my personal experience, which has urged me to try to introduce the Bill. My husband Steve died of cancer 14 years ago. At the time we were a family with three small children and, having had nothing to do with the benefits system, I was unaware that there were benefits to which we were entitled, which would have helped us at a difficult time.
	Anyone who has been through the earth-shattering diagnosis of terminal illness will say that money is the last thing on their mind. However, it helps enormously with all the bills that accrue when nursing somebody who is terminally ill. Many people choose to die at home. It is an enormous help to know that some support is available with, for example, cleaning, personal care and extra food that is especially palatable for someone who feels ill.
	Over the years I have met many people who, like me, were unaware of the benefits to which they were entitled. There does not appear to be one particular person or delivery system to take responsibility for ensuring that patients and their families know that there are benefits that they are entitled to claim speedily. Consequently, I tabled an amendment to the Health Bill, which we considered recently, and I am promoting the Bill that we are considering now.
	Coincidentally, days after I had done that, the Public Accounts Committee report entitled "Tackling Cancer: Improving the patient journey" was published, and I shall give the House a brief summary of its findings.
	The report found that terminally ill cancer patients were often not made aware of the non-means-tested disability benefits that they could have claimed to alleviate financial hardship. That was estimated by Macmillan Cancer Relief to involve more than £100 million over a six-month period. The report also highlighted the fact that three quarters of patients were given no information on financial benefits by the NHS or anyone else. However, research published in the report showed that nearly half those people would have welcomed such advice.
	Research carried out by Macmillan Cancer Relief in 2004 estimated that in 2001, terminally ill patients with six months or less to live failed to claim benefits worth £106 million over a six-month period. A cynic might ask whether the Government do not want people to claim those benefits, but I do not believe that that is the case, because they have put in place measures to ensure speedy delivery, which is welcome. What we do not have in place, however, is a system for the delivery of information. Hon. Members across the House are worried that no one has been given responsibility for this, either now or historically. The problem has existed for a long time.
	The figures show that many people are missing out, yet the benefits are easy to claim if people know that they are there. We have a speedy delivery system in place. I met the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), this week to discuss the matter, and I am grateful to her for giving me her time. Everyone says that we should be able to achieve this; it is just a question of knowing how to.
	Unfortunately, the report shows that in the 14 years since my husband died, nothing much has changed to ensure that information is given quickly and sensitively to patients. A tripartite group, comprising representatives of the Department for Work and Pensions, Macmillan Cancer Relief and the Department of Health, is looking at the issue. This is a sensitive topic involving health and benefits, and I want a firm assurance that the information will at least be given to patients, whether they choose to use it or not. At present, many people are denied that choice through ignorance. We must not allow our sensitivity to such issues to result in people not dying well. A compassionate society would make this a burning priority.
	The hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), who served on the Committee, observed that he believed the Department for Work and Pensions should be leading on this matter. The hon. Gentleman also made the very point that I am making today when he said that
	"there should in effect be a package for the patient and boxes which should be ticked to show that they have now received the benefits advice".
	Sir Nigel Crisp, who until yesterday was the chief executive at the Department of Health, accepted in his evidence that the system was "not good enough". That is something of an understatement, given that year after year, people are dying in reduced circumstances, when that need not happen. Sir Nigel also acknowledged that
	"not enough people who were entitled to benefit actually knew about it or were helped to find it. We do not have strong enough systems in place to do it."
	The national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards of St. Thomas' hospital, also gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, and he agreed that this was a big problem. So we all agree that the problem exists; it has been firmly identified. Professor Richards said in his evidence that he expected the paperwork to be rolled out by November 2005, and that the tripartite group would have agreed a way forward by the end of 2005. However, that has not happened. That date has come and gone, and no system is in place. We have had more talk, more water has passed under the bridge, and more people have died.
	I spoke with the Minister earlier this week, and I really welcomed our conversation. I was given assurances that she shared my desire to ensure that patients and their families were informed of the available benefits. Unfortunately, however, while discussions are ongoing with the tripartite group, the Government do not appear to be in a position to say that a clear line of responsibility for ensuring delivery of information has been established. I keep being giving plenty of reasons why things cannot be done, but on behalf of terminally ill patients, I am now demanding that someone starts to give us some solutions.
	Talk will not pay the bills. Talk will not pay for food that people find palatable while undergoing chemotherapy. Talk will not pay for someone to sit with a patient while his wife goes to collect their young family from school. My Bill proposes that a GP or other medical practitioner should ensure that the system is at least triggered. After all, those are the health professionals most closely connected with the patient and their family. They are the professionals needed to sign the DS1500 form that will trigger the speedy delivery of the benefit. Doctors are paid by the DWP for each form filled in, but the patient or their representative has to require the doctor to issue and fill in the form. How can they do that if they are unaware of the benefit? This is a miserable and frustrating cycle of ignorance and deprivation.
	I propose that the GP or other medical practitioner, after fully discussing the patient's illness with them or their representative, should be obliged to trigger a request for an information pack to be sent to the patient or their representative. The forms should be simple and sensitively worded so that the patient or their representative can decide whether to choose to use the system instead of languishing in ignorance. Let us not allow our sensitivity to a patient's plight to give us an excuse for inaction.
	New GP contracts were introduced in April 2004. That might have been an ideal time to have considered this additional small responsibility. After all, GPs are paid to sign the forms, and this is just an extension of the same service. We can trigger the delivery of a TV licence form to people's homes, so it should not be beyond the wit of man to trigger the delivery of a pack of information on benefits to those who are terminally ill. As it is often the GP or medical practitioner who is most closely involved, this is a simple and obvious solution.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Anne Main, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Frank Field, Mike Penning, Andrew Selous and Grant Shapps.

Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance (Information)

Anne Main accordingly presented a Bill to require any medical practitioner who diagnoses a terminal illness in a patient to inform the Secretary of State; to require the Secretary of State to give the patient information about his entitlement to, and a claim form for, attendance allowance and disability living allowance; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 142].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Road Safety Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House, or at least some Members of it, will no doubt recall that a Road Safety Bill was last presented to the House in November 2004, but unfortunately it fell before the general election. Although this Bill essentially brings back the same measures, it has been improved in two significant ways. First, there are new offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. On Second Reading of the previous Bill, there was a lot of debate on those matters. Secondly, the Bill contains a new offence of keeping an uninsured vehicle and a power to immobilise vehicles that do not meet insurance requirements. The power will be used to stop the owners of cars and lorries driving them when it is clear that they are not properly insured. I shall return to those measures later.
	I should also point out that two measures in the previous Bill have now been enacted elsewhere. First, drink drive information may now be taken at the roadside, which avoids the need for the police to go back to the police station when they stop someone, and secondly, in order to bear down further on uninsured drivers, the police have been given new powers to use automatic number plate recognition cameras linked to the databases of insurance companies to spot uninsured vehicles. Across the country, police forces are now using ANPR cameras to stop cars, and they can tell whether they are licensed and insured. In the autumn I saw that being done in Birmingham, and it is highly effective. It was surprising how many people were caught in the hour or so that I saw the system being used. It is an important way of tackling uninsured drivers and will increase the likelihood of people who are driving on the road without being properly insured being caught.

Graham Stringer: From my reading of the Bill, it seems to have been improved since the House last discussed it, but one area that is not covered is the nuisance of unregistered mini motor cycles. In Committee or on Report, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing the regulation and registration of mini motor cycles into the Bill?

Alistair Darling: I am aware of that problem, which was raised with me on a recent visit to Nuneaton; it is a problem in Greater Manchester, too. I have looked into it and, as ever with such things, the situation is complex, although more can be done to deal with it. Because mini motor cycles do not comply with construction and use regulations, they cannot be registered as road vehicles such as motor bikes, and thus are not allowed on the roads. As a result, the police have power under existing law to deal with anyone who drives a moto on the road or pavement, or in a public place. Motos are supposed to be used only on private land with the owner's permission. However, I am aware that police forces in different parts of the country take different views of what they can or cannot do, in terms of warnings and so on. We need to look into the matter.
	There is no doubt that those machines, some of which can go at 30 or 40 mph if not more, ridden by people who should not be driving anything on the road, let alone a moto, have the potential to cause immense damage, if not death. It is important that we are absolutely clear about the law. As I understand it, the law says that those vehicles are not allowed on the highway, which includes the pavements, so if a police officer finds someone driving one there, they have the power both to arrest the individual and to remove the machine. If the law lacks clarity or if there is any impediment, we should look into that before something serious happens. My hon. Friend has my assurance that we will look into the problem. It may be possible to do something during the passage of the Bill, but this may simply be a matter of making it clear to the police that there are already powers and that they should use them. If that is not the case, I should like to know what the problem is. There is no doubt that those machines are a source of irritation, and anyone buying one and putting a child on it is grossly irresponsible.
	I want to put the Bill into context before I come to particular proposals. Some people will say that we can do more, which is undoubtedly true, but it is worth bearing it in mind that despite everything that we have done, today—as every day—nearly nine people in this country will be killed on our roads. None the less, along with the Netherlands and Sweden, we have one of the best safety records in the world.
	Nearly six years ago, in March 2000, we set out plans to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads by 40 per cent. by 2010, and by 50 per cent. among children. The latest figures, for 2004, showed that the number of people killed or seriously injured had fallen by 28 per cent.—about 13,000 fewer casualties each year than in the mid-1990s, which is significant and more than halfway towards our target.
	The number of children killed or seriously injured has been cut by 43 per cent., which is three quarters of the way towards our target of a 50 per cent. reduction, but as the House is aware, too many children are being killed. Furthermore, there are large regional variations, which are of special concern.

Eric Martlew: I realise that later this year the Government will introduce new laws on booster seats in the back of motor vehicles, but why are there no proposals to make it compulsory for children to wear helmets when cycling? Why does the Department for Transport always turn its face against that sensible proposal?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend's first point is quite right. We are introducing new rules so that children under six have to travel in car booster seats and children between six and 11—up to the age of 12—have to be on a booster cushion. That is important.
	As for cycle helmets, my hon. Friend knows from the last time he introduced a private Member's Bill that there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument. I accept that, although my preference is that people should wear helmets; the more we do to protect people against injury, the better. However, there is no provision in the Bill because there is by no means unanimity about what we ought to do. I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend, and others, will return to the matter, and it is of course open to him to raise it in the various proceedings of the House.

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree with the measures that my right hon. Friend has described, but may I raise the wider issue of child fatalities? As my right hon. Friend will know, for the first time since records began, Edinburgh has been fortunate enough to experience no child fatalities for three years running. Does he agree that one reason for that has been the 20 mph limit? Will the Bill implement 20 mph zones throughout the country where that is feasible, so that the record that we have been fortunate enough to achieve in Edinburgh can be replicated in local authority areas with a less good record?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have been very fortunate in Edinburgh. There have been no child fatalities over the past few years, and long may that continue. The 20 mph speed limits outside primary schools have no doubt been a factor in that—Edinburgh has implemented quite a few over the past year or so—but it is also due to better road design and a general awareness on the part of drivers that they must drive very carefully when there are children around.
	As my hon. Friend knows, local authorities have power to impose 20 mph speed limits where that is appropriate. I do not think that they should be mandatory, because road conditions near schools and hospitals are different in each town and city. That is why discretion should lie with local authorities. Nevertheless, we must do all we can to prevent child fatalities. There are wide variations in different parts of the country, and local authorities owe it to children to think carefully about what measures they can take. Those may well include 20 mph speed limits.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling: I will, but then I must make some progress. Although this is a six-hour debate we are taking up a large chunk of it, and I have not yet begun to deal directly with the Bill.

Louise Ellman: In the context of child casualties, and indeed other casualties, will my right hon. Friend think again about one of the variable penalty proposals, which will reduce the number of penalty points for breaking the 30 mph speed limit? The Department's own publicity depicts a child saying:
	"Hit at 40 mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll die. Hit at 30 mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll live".

Alistair Darling: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal with that point at the stage when I planned to deal with it. I would be the last to claim that my speech has a shape to it, but such shape as there is will probably disappear if I deal with points in a different order.
	The Bill has four key themes. The first is the need to deal with bad or irresponsible driving, whether it consists of speeding, drink-driving or carelessness. The second is the need to deal with motorists who break the law by driving without insurance, or using vehicles that are not roadworthy. Thirdly, we want to make it more difficult for foreign drivers to escape penalties for a specific range of driving offences in this country. Fourthly, we have proposed measures to raise standards and improve awareness. Let me say now, for the benefit of Members who may seek to intervene, that I will deal with those themes in that order.
	Research shows that all drivers consider themselves to be better than average. I do not know whether that applies to everyone who is present today, but apparently it is the case. Nevertheless, poor driving is a key factor in many accidents. For example, nearly a third of car occupants who die have been involved in single vehicle accidents—accidents involving no other vehicle. Unfortunately, statistics suggest that the number of such accidents is increasing. It therefore seems sensible to bear down on some of the possible causes. One moment of carelessness or lack of attention can lead to serious consequences.
	Clauses 20 and 21 introduce new offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.
	Much of our Second Reading debate on the earlier Bill, which my hon. Friend missed out on, concerned precisely those issues. Until now, while it was possible to convict someone for causing death by dangerous driving, if the driving was merely careless it was not possible to convict. It is also important for us to be able to deal with drivers who are not insured, have not paid their tax or are disqualified. Until now a high level of proof has been required for conviction, and the clauses will make a substantial difference in that regard.

Kitty Ussher: I am very heartened by what my right hon. Friend is saying, as will be the family and friends of Levi Bleasdale and all those affected by her tragic death in my constituency. She was three years old when she was killed by a hit-and-run driver last year. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand my shock, and that of many of my constituents, at the lack of custodial sentences available for those who kill through careless driving. Does he share my outrage at the Conservatives' attempts to water down our provisions in the other place? Will he commit himself to reintroducing a charge of causing death by careless driving with a maximum sentence of five years, triable in a magistrates court?

Alistair Darling: We will do that. I think it important for magistrates courts to have that disposal. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, conviction for causing death by dangerous driving will carry a sentence of up to five years.
	It is of course for Parliament to determine the penalties, and the range of penalties, but I do not think that I am the only Member who thinks it important for the courts to regard someone who kills someone else using a car in the same way as someone using any other means of killing people. I suspect that most of us know of cases similar to that raised by my hon. Friend, in which constituents have lost young children, and someone has been convicted but justice is not seen to have been done. It is equally important for drivers to realise that the minute they sit behind a wheel they are driving something with the potential to cause death or serious injury.
	There has been a good deal of support in the House for the creation of that new offence. If the measure is passed, it will be on the statute book by the end of the year or the beginning of next year. The courts will have adequate powers; I hope that they will convict if the evidence justifies conviction, and, in particular, that the punishment will fit the crime. Taking a life is taking a life, no matter how it is done.

Andrew Miller: As my right hon. Friend says, drivers need to be more aware of their own technical ability. Will he congratulate the Institute for Advanced Motorists, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year? Does he agree that it is not a fuddy-duddy organisation, but an organisation for young and new drivers, and for very good drivers? Only last year, its president, Nigel Mansell—a man of great driving talent—recognised that it was appropriate for him to take the IAM course. His lead should be followed by every Member of Parliament.

Alistair Darling: I have sometimes been tempted to take the course myself but have not got there yet. I agree that the institute is very important, and people should be encouraged to take its courses. I believe that some insurance companies give their clients credit for having taken them. In my experience, pointing to a financial advantage sometimes helps people along the way.
	The Bill also seeks to change the law relating to drivers who are not insured. The present law allows illegal drivers to be prosecuted only for disqualified driving, driving without insurance or driving without a licence, unless their driving was at fault, in which case a charge of careless or dangerous driving would be applicable. Under the new proposals, a driver who was on the road illegally—without insurance—would be liable if, but for his presence on the road, an accident and consequent death would not have occurred, even if the standard of his driving was not at fault.
	That is a major step forward. It deals with a particular cause of concern throughout the country: people who steal cars, or do not bother to insure their cars. If such people are on the road and a fatal accident occurs, it must be right to enable the courts to act.

Adam Price: Taking a life is taking a life, but in this context we are surely talking in some cases about momentary misjudgments when there was no deliberate intent on the part of the individual to take a life. Surely that should be reflected in the Secretary of State's comments.

Alistair Darling: Yes. A substantial body of case law in relation to that and other matters allows the court to hear the evidence and then come to a view as to whether someone is guilty of that offence. Careless and inconsiderate driving is defined in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right: before someone can be sentenced, they have to be convicted in law beyond reasonable doubt, so the courts are well used to determining these matters. For example, prosecutors have to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that someone has caused death by dangerous driving or careless driving. The court has to decide whether that is the case, but it would be wrong of us not to give courts the option of being able to convict someone where the evidence points clearly to the fact that their conduct was such that the natural result was someone being killed, even though they perhaps did not intend that.
	The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the new proposal goes further than existing law, but I think that it is fully justified. The courts will, of course, be able to hear the evidence and come to a view. However, as with all these things, if he is making a bid to get on to the Committee that will scrutinise the Bill, he can no doubt explore the issue at greater length there.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State agree that the current situation is that if someone pleads guilty to careless driving, the court is in many cases not even told that someone died?

Alistair Darling: I will need to take some advice on that. The hon. Gentleman may be right but, in my view, when passing sentence, a court needs to be aware of all the circumstances. There is a world of difference between careless driving resulting in knocking over a flower pot and careless driving resulting in someone dying. The offence I have just described relates to someone who should not be on the road—because their car is not insured, for example. The Bill goes a lot further. It would be inconceivable in such cases for the court not to know that there had been a fatality.

Brian Iddon: In many cases, a driver who kills commits a multitude of offences, but the feeling among families of the victims is that not all those offences are totted up. The three new offences that my right hon. Friend referred to a few minutes ago have a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. Is it his view that if a driver has committed multiple offences, the court should tot up the sentences?

Alistair Darling: What to charge someone with is a matter entirely for the prosecutors in each case. It is not uncommon, as my hon. Friend knows, for someone to be charged with a number of offences. If they are convicted of all of them, the court has to take that into account. Equally, in some cases, someone is charged with one or two offences, rather than the lot, because that is what the prosecution thinks it can get a conviction on.
	I strongly believe that decisions on whether to prosecute and what to charge someone with are matters for the independent prosecution authorities, not for Ministers or Parliament, but it is for Parliament to set the range of offences and decide what is the mischief that we are trying to get at. That is what we are attempting to do.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of clarification, if the right hon. Gentleman was driving in Edinburgh, for example, and someone walked in front of him, he hit them, knocked them down and, unfortunately and heaven forfend, killed them, after the Bill had been enacted, what would the difference be in the way he was treated?

Alistair Darling: As I explained earlier, the position would not change as regards someone who was driving along and was insured. The question would be whether they were driving carelessly or dangerously. Under the Bill, if someone were driving carelessly because they were not paying proper attention or doing something that reduced their attention to the road, they could be charged with causing death by careless driving. On the other hand, they could be blameless. If the person driving along was not insured and there was a fatality, then, depending on the circumstances, under the additional measure to which I referred, it might be possible to charge that person with an offence.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that much depends on the circumstances of each case. We are plugging a gap because, until this Bill, hopefully, becomes law, it is not possible to charge a person with causing death by careless driving. Nor is it possible in every circumstance to get at someone who should not be on the road in the first place and whose car is involved in an accident involving a fatality. All those issues will no doubt be explored further in Committee.
	I have mentioned uninsured driving. Continuous registration has helped. The additional powers to which I referred earlier have helped in tracking people down and dealing with them where they have broken the law. Equally, electronic registration in the renewal of tax discs, which we introduced just last year, is helping to catch people who try to skip a month on their insurance, for example. However, the Bill also introduces a new offence of being the keeper of a vehicle, the use of which is not insured. Unless people have registered a statutory declaration and the thing is off the road, there will be an offence of keeping the car where it is not insured.
	The Bill increases penalties for careless and inconsiderate driving. The fine doubles to £5,000. As I said, clause 30 defines careless and inconsiderate driving for the first time. There is already a statutory definition of dangerous driving. For using a hand-held mobile phone while driving and for failing to have proper control of a vehicle, a mandatory endorsement is introduced. For repeat offences of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, there is mandatory disqualification if the offence is repeated within three years. That is a minimum of six months' disqualification.
	Excessive speed contributes to just over a third of fatalities—that means about 1,000 deaths every year—as well as being a factor in another 40,000 injuries. Several police forces now offer "low-end speeders" the option of going on speed awareness courses, and that will be in the Bill as a disposal available to the courts. The Association of Chief Police Officers is putting in place a national programme of awareness courses, which, of course, we welcome.
	The greatest reduction in such casualties would come from reducing speed across the board, and that is where speed cameras come in. I believe that, on any view one cares to take, speed cameras are saving lives and reducing speed. However, as I said in 2004—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) raised the point—we need to do more to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. A graduated system of penalties from two to six points, rather than the present system, would ensure that a distinction was made between someone who was just over the limit and someone who was driving way over the limit.
	I said last time—the Bill provides for this—that the Government would undertake consultation. Under the Bill, we have to consult and people will be able to respond. I think I am right in saying that, in the consultation on the principle of the measure in 2004–05, just over half of respondents said they were in favour of graduated penalties. Obviously, when we consult fully, we will see what people have to say. After that consultation, there will be proposals. A measure will come before the House, and it will be subject to the usual affirmative procedure.

Paul Rowen: rose—

Andrew Selous: rose—

Alistair Darling: I will give way in a moment.
	There is probably a range of views in the House, but I yield to no one in my belief that speed cameras are playing an essential role. The changes that I announced towards the end of last year will help further, but I think that it is right to introduce a graduated system, using points and the fines that flow from them, to reflect the fact that different speeds are sometimes involved.

Andrew Selous: Does the Secretary of State agree that we should all be equal under the law as far as speed cameras are concerned and that it is therefore not right that people who incorrectly register their vehicle details are able to avoid penalties from speed cameras? I can show the Secretary of State details of one vehicle caught 73 times in my constituency doing speeds of up to 119 miles per hour, but the police are powerless to deal with it. Does he agree that, at the very least, that is a serious issue, which he and his Ministers should look into?

Alistair Darling: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue with the Minister of State, who has agreed to meet him to discuss it. If we need to amend the Bill to deal with that problem, we will see what can be done. I am not making any promises, but let us explore the issue because the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. If people are using a false address or fiddling the system and the police cannot get to them, we need to sort that out, and we will do so.

Paul Rowen: The other place introduced an amendment on the use of income from speed cameras. What does the Secretary of State plan to do about it?

Alistair Darling: We have already dealt with that issue, so the amendment is not necessary. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when the three-year assessment of speed cameras was published last year, I changed the funding arrangements. Part of the problem is that people have tended over the years to regard speed cameras as a free option because it cost nothing to put them in. I want to ensure that where there is a particular safety problem, local authorities and the police can consider various factors such as changing the road layout or the speed limit, as well as the introduction of speed cameras. The amendment tabled in the other place might have been worthy of consideration had we not decided to change the funding regime, but as we are in the process of changing it—some £110 million will be available to local authorities—the amendment is not appropriate, and we will deal with it when it comes before the Standing Committee.

John Pugh: Will the Secretary of State make a comparison between normal speed cameras and the clever electronic advisory signs used in many villages, in order to see which works best at producing slower traffic movements?

Alistair Darling: I am with the hon. Gentleman on this. These signs, which are used more in villages and small towns than in cities, are very effective. They light up to warn drivers that they are going at 35 mph—so I am told. [Interruption.] I have never noticed them myself. To be fair, a policeman drove me through a village outside Edinburgh to show me what happens, and I sat in the passenger seat marvelling at the technology. Such signs are effective, but if we give the money to local authorities and the police, they can decide what measures are best. In some cases, speed cameras are the best solution, and they are effective; but in others, different measures might be more effective.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with, and support very strongly, my right hon. Friend's point of view on speed cameras, but I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said about graduated speeding penalties. Will not such penalties inevitably lead to some people taking chances by driving faster than they otherwise would, thereby leading to an incremental increase in deaths and injuries at the margin? Has my right hon. Friend's Department done any research on what might happen under such a system?

Alistair Darling: It is difficult to research something that has not yet happened. My own belief is that most people start from the point of view that they do not want any points on their licence or to be fined. I am not sure that that many people say, "I don't mind getting two points, but I don't want three." I look at this issue in a slightly different way: we should distinguish between someone who does 36 mph and someone who does 66 mph, and that is why the graduated scheme is better. I recognise that people have strong views on this proposal, and the last time we consulted on it, the division was about 50:50, with slightly more in favour of graduated penalties. If the Bill is passed, the next stage will be to consult on specific proposals, and depending on that consultation, we will put them before both Houses and they will be voted on. We must ensure that people appreciate that keeping their speed low is the important thing, but when someone does break the law, the punishment should fit the crime. Some graduation is necessary, but when we discuss this issue in Committee, Members will doubtless let us know what they think.

Tom Harris: In some areas, under the current system, drivers who speed at, for example, between 31 and 40 mph in a 30 mph zone might not be prosecuted unless and until they reach 40 mph. Under a system of variable endorsement levels, might not more such drivers end up being prosecuted because the endorsement level is less? I am not saying that that is necessarily an unwanted consequence, but might it not be one?

Alistair Darling: I am not sure that that will be so, unless the general policy changes on how such cases are pursued. This is a classic case of different views being held in all parts of the House, and I am sure that we will have a decent discussion in Committee. I still tend to the view, which is the Government's, that we should have a graduated response, but I shall be interested to hear what Members have to say. All of us know of people who have been done for going just over the limit, and we must contrast that with someone who drives at 60 mph in a 40 mph zone, which is an extremely serious offence.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: Yes, but then I must make some progress.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I am intrigued by his earlier example of somebody driving at 66 mph in a 30 mph zone. Under the current system, surely such a person would be prosecuted through the courts, rather than receiving a fixed penalty from the police. In fact, it is quite possible that they would be prosecuted not just for speeding but for dangerous driving. Will his new measure take people who are guilty of driving at higher speeds out of the court system and away from public scrutiny?

Alistair Darling: No. I think that I gave the example of someone driving at 66 mph in a 40 mph zone, and if I did not, I apologise. As it happens, 66 mph, according to guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers, is on the cusp in terms of being sent to court, so such a person might or might not be sent to court. I used that example because the point is that someone who does 66 mph in a 40 mph zone could get the same number of points and the same fine as someone who does 36 mph; I ask the House to reflect on that.
	I will of course take further interventions, but I want first to make further progress. As I said earlier, courts will have recourse to retraining courses, and we will raise the penalty for failing to identify a driver to six penalty points. We will also clarify the law on speeding exemptions and the associated training requirements. People who are transporting organs for transplant by car, for example, are sometimes stopped by the police, and the law in that area needs to be clarified.
	On any view, there has been a significant drop in the number of deaths and injuries at safety camera sites. Devices that detect or jam such equipment need to be dealt with, and the Bill does that.
	There has been a change in Britain's culture in terms of drink-driving. Generally speaking, the figures have come down since the 1970s, but alcohol is still a factor in about one in seven of all fatal crashes, accounting for some 500 deaths a year. What is worse, 20 per cent. of such offenders are repeat offenders. The statistics also show that younger, predominantly male drivers are more likely to be under the influence of alcohol. So we are giving the courts the power to make repeat drink-driving offenders retake their driving test. That will require secondary legislation, but the principle needs to be dealt with in the Bill. That way, repeat offenders will be kept off the roads until they have completed the necessary medical examination. We will also enable the use of alcohol ignition interlocks, which have been shown to be effective in discouraging reoffending. I hope that all these measures, backed up by others such as advertising, will get across the message that drinking and driving kills.

Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend also acknowledge the very real problem of driving under the influence of drugs? What progress is being made in finding an effective way of testing people for drugs?

Alistair Darling: I agree that driving under the influence of anything that impairs judgment—drugs are the obvious example—is just as dangerous as the specific example of alcohol. The difficulty, as I understand it, lies in developing roadside equipment that can detect the presence of drugs; however, people can of course be taken to a police station for a blood test. A number of people are working on this issue because, sadly, as my hon. Friend knows, people driving under the influence of drugs is as much of a problem as people driving under the influence of drink.

David Kidney: Has my right hon. Friend been convinced by the evidence that a lower drink-drive limit would save lives and by the argument from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—I declare an interest as a member—for targeted testing by the police, based on intelligence, instead of random testing?

Alistair Darling: My view is that we need to concentrate on those people who are breaking the law now. As my hon. Friend knows, the lower the level is set, the more difficult it is to justify, because people may have low levels of alcohol in their bodies for all sorts of reasons other than the fact that they have had a drink. The biggest problem we face is from people who are not just over the limit, but way over the limit. That is why the measures in the Bill are important.
	I should make it clear that if hon. Members think that we should adopt any other measures, we are willing to listen to any such proposals. However, I am not convinced by the argument advanced by PACTS. Incidentally, the stuff on the front pages of newspapers yesterday about the use of cameras was rubbish, as a simple inquiry could have established.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am still concerned by my right hon. Friend's view that we should not reduce the permitted level of blood alcohol. I understand that the majority of European countries now have lower limits than we do and there must be evidence that death rates have fallen as a result.

Alistair Darling: The problem for much of continental Europe is that they have much higher rates of offending. They have a low limit, but it is not actually enforced. The French Government have a big problem with this issue and have stepped up detection significantly in the past few years. What matters is that people need to know that there is a strong likelihood that they will be caught. We have been working with chief constables, who have to decide where to target their resources. I strongly believe that the police should target drink driving, because it is a problem, not only at Christmas time, but throughout the year.
	The second theme is measures to stop people who drive without tax and insurance. Continuous vehicle registration has helped and the House may be interested to know that vehicle licence evasion has fallen by 400,000 since 2002, which means that the revenue lost from evasion has dropped by £60 million in the same time. The Bill allows the regulation of registration plate suppliers to be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It also enables us to share driver and vehicle data with foreign authorities. That is important, because one of the themes that has emerged, especially with more and more foreign vehicles being driven in this country, is the lack of access to information about who owns them. We need to do more to build co-operation across Europe on that issue. I hope that those measures will command support on both sides of the House, although I understand that in certain parts, co-operation with Europe creates some difficulties.
	When we first published the Bill, it enabled the Department to require the surrender of paper driving licences, probably some time after 2008, to allow them to be replaced with photocard driving licences. That part of the Bill was removed in the other place. We will reintroduce that important measure, because the police need to be sure that the person they stop at the roadside is producing their own documents. Last year alone, the police brought to the DVLA's attention approximately 1,200 cases in which individuals had set up more than one identity, and some of them had many identities. All of us know that the paper driving licence is reasonably easy to manipulate and therefore misrepresent. We should therefore introduce a photographic licence that has better security and makes such deception much more difficult. I am sorry that the Conservatives in the other place are opposed to that: I hope that the Conservatives here will take a more realistic view. The police and others rely on driving licences and they should be as secure as possible. We do not plan to make the change immediately, but at some point it will be necessary to recall paper licences and replace them with licences that are more robust.

Chris Grayling: One of the concerns expressed in the Lords was the potential link between the replacement of paper driving licences and the Government's plans for identity cards. If those two are completely divorced, what he has said makes good sense. If he can give the House a clear undertaking to that effect, we would not have a problem with what he says.

Alistair Darling: That is not a debate that we need to have because I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I refer him to what the Home Secretary said when we last debated identity cards. We are not planning to designate ID cards in that way, and they will be separate. The photographic licence would be a separate requirement for different reasons. At some stage, biometric information will be required and, given that the same information will be required for both passports and driving licences, it makes sense to co-operate on them, but the two documents will be distinct. My concern is to reduce the possibility that someone can use a paper licence to create false identities, with all the problems that that raises. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
	The Bill will also require vehicle mileages to be reported to the DVLA, possibly at the time of the MOT to try to combat clocking.
	The third element is our attempt to ensure that foreign drivers who break the laws here do not escape punishment. If a driver cannot or will not pay a fixed penalty, the police will be able to require a deposit. If people fail to pay the deposit or the police believe that they cannot rely on the address and information given, they will be able to immobilise the vehicle to prevent it from leaving the country. On most occasions, the value of the lorry is substantially more than the fine, so I hope that that will be a more effective way to stop people than simply imposing a fine that they then ignore. That measure is a welcome step forward.

Philip Hollobone: According to the Northamptonshire police, 70 per cent. of the traffic collisions on the M1 through the county are caused by foreign-owned heavy goods vehicles, because they do not have sufficient mirrors on the correct side. When they overtake, they pull out into other traffic. Will the Bill introduce any measures to assist with extra mirror provision on HGVs, so that the number of collisions may be reduced?

Alistair Darling: There are no such measures in the Bill, but we are working with other European Governments to deal with that problem. It is important that drivers of lorries in this country can see what is going on. I am not sure that the Bill is the right way to achieve that and it might be better achieved through Europe-wide legislation, because there might be reciprocal requirements for our lorries abroad. We are aware of the issue and my hon. Friend the Minister of State tells me that we are actively working on it. If the hon. Gentleman wants some further information, I am happy to write to him.

Greg Knight: Before the Secretary of State commends the Bill to the House and sits down, will he say something about clause 50. Where a motorist deliberately ignores a red flashing light and descending barriers at a railway level crossing, is there not a case for imposing a greater penalty than six points? In view of the likelihood of death or serious injury for many people as a result, is there not a case for a period of mandatory disqualification to be imposed?

Alistair Darling: I am not quite ready to commend the Bill to the House or to sit down: I am coming to the railway provisions and I will deal with that question then.

David Drew: To go back to the previous point, it is necessary not only that HGV drivers should be able to see other vehicles, but that other drivers should be able to see HGVs. He will be aware that the other place introduced new clause 16 on the conspicuousness of HGVs. It would be good to have a reassurance from the Government that they intend to leave the clause in the Bill and also that they will add a time scale for its introduction. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a longstanding campaign on that issue, and I hope that it has now been successful.

Alistair Darling: I can perhaps cheer and disappoint my hon. Friend at the same time. We do not think that such legislation is needed, because such things will happen anyway, but when my hon. Friend the Minister of State explains the issue in Committee, he will amplify that and—who knows?—he might even deal with it extensively when he replies to the debate.
	Other measures will introduce advanced learning packages and ensure that we improve the standards of tuition and instruction. There are proposals on the registration of instructors and others that will allow the publication of their performance, and other measures that, I hope, will raise people's general education and awareness of good driving on the roads.
	I wish to draw the House's attention to the proposal on tiredness, which was contained in the previous Road Safety Bill. We intend to introduce picnic areas—or aires, as they are called in France—where people can stop, so that they need not go to a service station or McDonald's, or anything like that, to sit and relax, and the first one will be on the M5 in Somerset.
	Other measures relate to radioactive material, London private hire vehicles and the certification of vehicles.

John Horam: The Secretary of State mentions private hire vehicles in London. I suppose that he was referring to clause 58, under which the Government seek to extend what we think of as the "Minicab Act" to operators who solely hire vehicles under contract to local authorities—for example, those used to ferry children who have special needs to and from school and other such activities. Clause 58 will bring them into the minicab regulations, and many people think that it is a piece of over-regulation. I hope that he will consider representations on that issue sympathetically.

Alistair Darling: I will certainly look at representations, but we are trying to ensure that anyone who drives people and the quality of the vehicle used meet certain basic standards. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, of course he can, but the objective of the provision is to try to ensure that we can balance individuals' needs with the requirements of the general public, so that they can be satisfied about standards generally.
	On the Network Rail point, we will seek to remove the six new clauses introduced in another place, because they would not achieve what their movers wanted them to achieve, but we will introduce an alternative proposal that, I hope, will deal with that problem. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked in particular about the penalties for people who ignore the lights and cross the railway. The fine for doing that was increased to £5,000 in another place. A lower fine was proposed originally. I am concerned that there have been several incidents in the past year where people have clearly decided to take a gamble and tried to get through the barriers, thus putting at risk not just their own lives, but those of the people on the oncoming train.
	Of course, we will not be able to deal with suicide cases that way—the fine would not make much difference—but I will reflect on such fines, endorsements or disqualifications to determine how we deal with such things. Several incidents in the past year or so, particularly on the east coast line and the lines off it, have caused me concern, and I want to think about how we should deal with them in the light of what has been said in the other place.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he clarify his new ideas and thoughts on the issue? Does he envisage letting the House know what he is thinking during the passage of the Bill, or at some time in the future?

Alistair Darling: The appropriate time to consider the issue would be during the debates in Committee, which will probably take place in a couple of weeks' time, although I am not sure when we will reach that part of the Bill. Such a time scale would allow a proper debate to take place in Committee, and the House could then deal with the issue on Report if necessary. That is probably the best thing to do.
	Just before I sit down, it is worth returning to the overall point. The road safety record in this country is good, but it obviously needs to get better. I am glad that the number of traffic police on the roads has increased in the past couple of years or so. I remind the House that the traffic officers for which the Highways Agency is responsible are now on most parts of the network, and almost 1,000 of them will be fully operational by the summer. They are already proving their worth, by helping to clear up after accidents, removing debris from the roads and attending to people whose vehicles have broken down. That also helps to improve road safety.
	I am sure that the Bill contains measures that will make a difference. No doubt, further representations on further necessary measures will be made, and the Government will, of course, listen to them. Anything that we can do to improve road safety and the quality of driving on our roads must be supported, and on that basis I commend the Bill to the House.

Chris Grayling: We welcome many aspects of the detail of the Bill. There are many things that divide us in the House, but securing people's safety on and around our roads is not one of them. We will back the Government in giving the Bill a Second Reading this evening—it contains some commendable measures—but we will not be afraid to be critical of its detail in Committee. We do not support some parts of it, we are sceptical about others, and we believe that some require tightening, but that is what debates in Committee are all about.
	We hope to have constructive debates in Committee and on Report. We hope that our ideas about how we can improve the Bill will be listened to and that those constructive debates will lead to those proposals that are sensibly being enacted. Notwithstanding our support for much of the detail, the Bill does not do the job that it could do. It is a missed opportunity in many ways. It tends to be a patchwork of measures, rather than a strategy for improvement. The Secretary of State has touched on some of the big challenges, but they should be much more central to the direction of the Bill.
	We face some huge challenges on our roads. The Secretary of State is right to suggest that casualty figures in this country are lower than in many other countries, but they are still too high. When a train crashes and people die, the news dominates the headlines for days, but on every day of every week of every year, more people die on the roads than in most major accidents on our railways and other modes of transport in this and other countries. Those accidents pass largely unnoticed, except in the areas where they take place. Far too many children, cyclists and motor cyclists die on our roads each year. Indeed, we are now seeing signs that, after long years of success, the improvements in road safety appear to have reached a plateau. I hope that the Bill, when it is passed into law, will make a difference in trying to push that trend downwards once again.

Tom Harris: I welcome the tone that the hon. Gentleman has struck so far, but will he confirm whether measures considered by the Conservative party during the last Parliament to raise the national speed limit to 80 mph will be considered by the new model Conservative party for inclusion in its next manifesto?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me on to Conservative party policy making, which is something that we will be doing over the next 12 to 18 months. I do not intend to share all our thinking with him today. All I will say is that the steps that we will seek to propose, as we prepare to become the Government after 2009, will be designed to improve safety on our roads. That will be a central part of what we do; it should be a central part of what all political parties seek to do in their road transport strategies.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying so far. He talks about improving the Bill and refers to road traffic accidents reaching a plateau. We are now getting down to a hard core of a small number of persistent offenders. Some people are very bad drivers. Will he therefore suggest to the Government that they could get to that core group by imposing on those drivers longer and more frequent driving bans—possibly even lifetime bans—rather than financial penalties?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the core group. If he bears with me, I shall come on to that because it is the central part of the problem that we face.
	In the spirit of congeniality, let me say that the Government have done some smart things. We welcome those and want them to continue. The 20 mph speed limit in urban areas has made a difference. It is and will be the right thing to do in quiet residential side streets. The Government were right to champion safe routes to schools. We all want improvements to the way in which our children get to school, and changes to ensure that they do so as safely as possible.
	However, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the real issue: the Bill does not fully get to grips with the most significant part of the challenge that we face. In Britain, well over 1 million cars—a large number of drivers, indeed—are being driven around outside the confines of the law in a systematic way. In doing so, those people are placing law-abiding British people at risk. They have no insurance and are registered at false addresses. They ignore MOT requirements and fake or ignore tax discs. They are unlicensed and have often never bothered to learn to drive. They may be driving cloned vehicles—a big challenge in many of our cities—whereby they have deliberately stolen the identity of others so that they can offend with impunity.
	In many areas, those unlicensed and uninsured cars ply for minicab business on our streets. All too frequently, those cars and their drivers, who operate outside the law, kill or maim. Research shows that they are 10 times more likely to have been convicted of drunk driving, six times more likely to have been convicted of driving an unsafe vehicle, and three times more likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention.
	The Bill does not set out a clear enough strategy to deal with the problem. Of course, there are welcome steps in it and it contains things that will help to make a difference in tackling the problem. The measures on uninsured vehicles are sensible, but much more could be done to tackle the problem of uninsured drivers. For example, a £100 fine is not sufficient to address the problem of an uninsured car sitting in the street, undriven, outside someone's house. The British Insurance Brokers Association describes the measure as "totally insufficient".

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that removal, confiscation and disposal of such vehicles would be a much more effective penalty than a small financial penalty in the form of a fine?

Chris Grayling: I very much agree and hope that Ministers, and all those serving on the Committee, will discuss that in detail. It is one way to tighten the measure. The removal of a vehicle and its return only when a heavy fine and the cost of insurance are paid is one way to address that.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman regret, as I do, that the Home Office has withdrawn funding for a special scheme called "Scrap it", which enables local authorities to take those vehicles off the road extremely quickly?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a problem. The Government are always asking our local authorities to take on responsibility after responsibility. Those may be desirable responsibilities, but many areas do not receive the funding for them. The decision about whether a local authority should tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles, for example, depends on whether it can afford to divert money from other key services.
	We completely support the new penalty for causing death when unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified. No hon. Member could disagree with that, although there is an aspect of the measure that could be strengthened. However, the Government could have taken much tougher action against such drivers in other ways. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) last year highlighted the problem of people who commit multiple offences while driving and who shelter behind false addresses. I am grateful that Ministers are willing to talk about that now. My hon. Friend has campaigned on the issue for months. Police forces around the country have made noises about it for months and have made a little progress. The measure is overdue.
	The problem essentially is that offenders are registering their vehicles behind false addresses. There are a number of addresses in Essex, for example, at which dozens of vehicles are registered. When a driver commits an offence—whether going past a speed camera at high speed, parking illegally or something else—and the authorities try to track down the users of those vehicles, they find themselves dealing with the front address and have no possible means of finding the owners. That cannot be right and it must be tackled.
	Officers dealing with those problems on the front line say that they do not have adequate legal backing to impound such vehicles if they find them. They are uncertain about the powers that exist. The Bill is an opportunity to provide them with much greater clarity and, perhaps, with powers to seize vehicles at the roadside if they are stopped and for automatic confiscation. However, I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it cannot be right to have vehicles on our road that rack up thousands of pounds in fines with a brazen disregard for the law. I have seen a photograph from Bedfordshire of a couple of young men in an old car driving past a speed camera, both leaning wide out of the windows and sticking two fingers up at the camera as they go by. That is the kind of brazen disregard for the law that we must tackle.
	Likewise, I want to see clearer measures to tackle the massive problem of untaxed vehicles. Local authorities and local police do not often have the resources or the ability to deal with the problem in the way that they might wish. I want to see tougher action still against unlicensed drivers. There are measures in the Bill, but more could be done. We need much tougher penalties on hit-and-run drivers. We heard one or two examples from Back-Bench Members about the devastating impact of hit-and-run driving. It remains the case that if someone is involved in an accident having drunk too much alcohol, the law provides an incentive to drive away at speed. A person may be less likely to be disqualified as a result of leaving the scene of the accident than if he stays and is breathalysed. We should address that. There is no excuse whatever for motorists driving away from the scene of an accident. We should prosecute those who do with the toughest force of the law, and that should include long disqualifications.

Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a case like that of Levi Bleasdale, which was mentioned, would be partially tackled by the Bill? Nothing will compensate parents for the loss of their child, but it would make it possible to get such a driver for causing death by careless driving and to give him the increased prison sentence for driving without a licence. If the two sentences ran consecutively—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was asked about that—the driver could be imprisoned for up to seven years. It would not compensate for a life lost, but it would be much more than the six weeks, or whatever, that the driver got.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady misses the point. I am not talking purely about fatal accidents, but about minor accidents as well.

Sally Keeble: It was a tragic case.

Chris Grayling: Of course, and it needed to be prosecuted with the force of the law. Having read the case, a charge of dangerous driving should have been seriously considered. As I recall, the driver was unlicensed, and the measure that we support to tackle the problem of unlicensed drivers would do the job. However, it is not always about dealing with accidents that cause death. We also need to deal with accidents in which there are serious or relatively minor injuries. There is no excuse whatever for any driver who is involved in an accident simply to drive away. There are times when the law provides a perverse incentive to do so. If someone has drunk too much, has a minor accident and drives away, he is probably slightly less likely to be disqualified for a year than if he stops and is breathalysed. That cannot be sensible. There is no excuse for driving away from the scene of an accident.
	We also need to change the rules under which the DVLA operates when false addresses are used. I had a case in my constituency recently of a family barraged with legal notices because the previous owners of their house had not changed the address on their driving licences. They did that entirely deliberately so that they could use false information to commit offences with impunity. Yet the DVLA is not allowed under current rules to amend its records without written notification from the licence holder. If I move house, commit offences everywhere and leave the people who bought my house to pick up the problems that that causes—police and bailiffs knocking on the door, and so forth—the only person who can get the details changed is me, and since I am the offender I am hardly likely to do that. I hope that we can also tackle that problem.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the DVLA has a sophisticated database that enables it to take a registration plate and work out who the owner is, but it does not enable it to go the other way by starting off with the owner and finding out what cars are registered in his name. That would be a small technical change that would approve things ahead of legislation. There is no case for not doing it.

Chris Grayling: That is an interesting idea, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman include it in an amendment and discuss it with Ministers. I am not familiar with the detail of the issue, but it could be debated constructively during the passage of the Bill.
	I do not condone any motoring offence, but sometimes the Government choose the easier option when they regulate against motorists and thus fail to get to grips with the serious challenge posed by people who systematically ignore the law on tax, insurance, drink-driving and related issues. The Bill is therefore a missed opportunity. We will work constructively in Committee to address that, and we will try to introduce measures to strengthen the provisions against the most lawless drivers. I hope that the Government are willing to work with us constructively as we seek to do so.
	There are three areas in which we want to change the detail of the Bill including, first, the most controversial part of the Bill—the provision to introduce much tougher sentences for careless drivers. I understand clearly and in detail the Government's motivation for proposing a change. There is a serious problem with the distinction between the offences of careless and dangerous driving. We are all aware of instances in which the Crown Prosecution Service has not pursued a dangerous driving case so the offender has escaped with a sentence that appears much too lenient, given the crime that was committed. We therefore understand why many families are angry when a motorist's actions lead to the death of a loved one but that individual is charged with dangerous driving and escapes with only a fine.
	Those families and the organisations that work with them have made a powerful case to all hon. Members in the past few weeks. We accept the need to change the current system, but we have genuine reservations about the detail of the Government's proposals. When we debate those proposals, I hope that Members on both sides of the House will accept that our concerns are genuine and not party political. We are not interested in playing off the interests of motorists against the interests of road safety, as we have a duty to get these things right. I have two concerns about the proposals, including the use of the term "careless or inconsiderate" in the wording of the proposed new offence.
	In framing legislation, the House must find the right balance between acceptance that people make mistakes, sometimes with terrible but unintended consequences, and the need to ensure that if people act in a way that they can reasonably be expected to know is unsafe they can be held to account when their action results in tragedy. That is not an easy dividing line for any politician to find, and I accept that there is a dilemma facing Ministers. There are serious difficulties. How do we judge whether someone should have looked a little harder when leaving a junction? How do we judge someone who swerves to avoid an animal and kills a cyclist instead? Is someone driving just within the speed limit on an icy road on a dark morning—conditions that could be considered dangerous—driving carelessly or dangerously? I do not believe that this country's tradition of fairness and justice makes it sensible to provide in law for long sentences for careless drivers. What does "inconsiderate" mean? Are we going to send someone to prison for five years for being inconsiderate? We therefore have serious reservations about the drafting of the offence. We will debate it carefully in Committee and introduce proposals to improve the current system.

Stephen McCabe: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest, but is not the case that he cited, of someone who swerves to avoid an animal but inadvertently kills a cyclist, a classic example of careless driving, but with the extraordinary consequences to which he referred earlier? Is it not right to impose a heavier penalty in those circumstances for that level of carelessness?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sometimes on the road people make snap judgments that are wrong and that have devastating consequences. There is no intent to kill. There may have been misjudgment—with greater experience, they might have avoided that misjudgment—but that does not make them criminals who deserve a long prison sentence. We must make suitable provision in law. There are cases in which people slip through the net, and in such cases the penalty should probably have been stronger. However, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the introduction of a penalty that is so wide ranging that it drags people who have committed an offence in the circumstances that I have just described into the net of a long prison sentence.

Stephen Ladyman: May I clarify something so that I can respond properly to the hon. Gentleman later? Is it the principle of the offence of causing death by careless driving about which he is concerned, or is it just the detail of the way in which we have defined "careless"? If we manage to agree on that detail in Committee, will he withdraw his objection?

Chris Grayling: It is the principle of the word "careless" that is the problem. If the Government can define in detail a form of words with which we are comfortable we are happy to look at their proposals. Traditionally, there has been an acceptance in British law of the dividing line between carelessness and dangerousness. The way in which that dividing line operates is not satisfactory, as it is handled differently by the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service. I therefore have reservations about "careless" and "inconsiderate", particularly the latter word, which is very loose indeed.

Sally Keeble: Can the hon. Gentleman expand his argument? I introduced a private Member's Bill that dealt with penalties for causing death or serious injury by careless driving, and I thought that he was supporting that approach earlier. What hierarchy of offences and penalties does he propose to introduce to achieve justice for the public, as the Bill would, if he does not accept the offence of careless driving?

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as she has steered me towards the second part of my argument. I do not want to rehearse this afternoon what should be a careful and thoughtful discussion in Committee. The fine detail of the definitions in the Bill is properly a matter for Committee. I am simply seeking to emphasise the fact that we are not comfortable with the idea of the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving being subject to a substantial penalty. We hope that there will be a constructive debate in Committee that will find a way forward, as I accept the principle behind the Government's proposals.
	The main point that the hon. Lady made, however, is extremely important, and it reveals another weakness in those proposals. Why does the provision for heavier punishment apply only to accidents where there is a fatality? Someone may be found guilty of causing an accident in which the victim dies, and that may merit five years in prison. Why is that different from an accident in which someone is paralysed for life? There is no attempt in the Bill to make provision for such a case, so I would welcome an amendment to the new provision for heavier punishment to include people who drive while uninsured or disqualified and cause serious injury, such as a lifetime injury that prevents someone from working again. That is an omission on the Government's part. The hon. Lady is right. If someone who is driving without insurance or a licence and thus flouting the laws of the road runs someone over, disfiguring them for life, why should the penalty be any different from the penalty for causing a fatality? I hope that Ministers will give that due consideration in Committee.
	I hope that we have a constructive debate in Committee and that everyone in the House accepts that we share their motivations, as well as the motivations of campaign groups, so that we secure justice for the victims of utterly unacceptable behaviour on our roads. However, we do not want to criminalise people who make a misjudgment. Whether we like it or not, people in our society make misjudgments which, with hindsight, they probably should not have made. However, there was no intent, and they made a mistake. I want to make sure that there is a key difference between making an horrendous mistake and doing something that is utterly unacceptable.
	My second area of inquiry concerns the Government's plan to use alcohol interlock devices in cars to reduce a driver's disqualification period. I am sceptical about that: I appreciate that it has been piloted, and that there have been discussions with the insurance industry, but I want serial drink-drivers to be taken off the road and given long bans. They should not have the right significantly to reduce their disqualification periods simply by placing a piece of technology in their cars.
	We do not know whether alcohol interlock devices are foolproof. Ideas are certainly in circulation about how one can get round them, and I have had a couple of conversations about that in the past week. I have no idea whether the devices can be circumvented, but I am not sure that I want to put that to the test, as history shows that people can be pretty ingenious when it comes to getting around technological barriers.
	I see no compelling reason to go down that route, or to believe that society will reap huge benefits as a result. We will merely be introducing yet another system that has to be managed and organised, at a cost to the taxpayer. I appreciate that motorists will have to pay for the piece of kit, but public officials will have to organise its installation and the courts will have to have a follow-through process to make sure that it is installed. The proposal will cost the taxpayer, come what may, and who will administer and supervise the process? We should keep serial drink-drivers off the roads, and I am not convinced that alcohol interlock devices are the right way forward.
	Secondly, I now have a better understanding of why the Government propose that motorists who offend should go on driving education courses and thus gain some remission of their penalties, but I hope that they will make it clearer in Committee how they envisage that the system will work. What must not happen is that a person facing a three-month disqualification for speeding can get back on the road quickly, simply by signing up for a day's course.
	Thirdly, I was pleased by what the Secretary of State had to say about safety on level crossings, and I am glad that he is thinking positively about it. We thought that the measures added in the Lords were constructive, but we believe that they do not go far enough. The House should be clear that driving a car across a level crossing that is closed and has its warning lights flashing is an offence that should be treated with the utmost severity. Some horrendous railway accidents have been caused by cars on level crossings, and sometimes the circumstances mean that it is impossible for the law to do anything. There was a tragic incident near Newbury in 2004, when it is believed that a motorist sought to commit suicide by parking in front of a train. No new laws can prevent such acts, but we should take a very different view when a driver is intent simply on dodging the crossing and avoiding delay.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and I have watched the Network Rail presentation of CCTV footage of absurdly dangerous behaviour by motorists at level crossings, and I suspect that Ministers have done the same. I shall describe one example to the House. One CCTV excerpt showed a level crossing with a queue of cars. A clearly impatient driver pulled out of the queue and drove around the other cars to the crossing, which had a half barrier rather than a full one. The driver steered through the barrier, only realising at the last moment that a train was about to arrive. He braked hard and reversed quickly to get out of its way. The car missed the oncoming train by a matter of feet. Had the two collided, there might have been a multiple-fatality railway accident. Such driving can only be described as absurdly dangerous, with a wanton disregard for the safety of passengers on the train.
	If that were an isolated incident we might not argue for change, but such driving is not rare. A couple of weeks ago, I received a written answer from the Minister of State to the effect that there are 20 or so collisions each year involving cars and trains at level crossings. Many more incidents go unreported, with vehicles coming close to collision or with drivers simply getting away with jumping the lights and the gates.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, has told me that there have been 22 such incidents at one crossing in his constituency in the past year alone, and about 75 in all across the county of Shropshire. Therefore, we think that their lordships were right to say that the problem needed to be addressed, and the Government were wrong to question their arguments. I am delighted that Ministers have had a change of heart, and we look forward to the amendment that they will introduce.
	The amendments tabled in the Lords contain a provision to issue six penalty points to drivers crossing a level crossing when its barriers are down, but that does not go far enough. Actions that so blatantly jeopardise other people's lives should incur a minimum penalty that includes a substantial period of disqualification from driving. In my view, it is as dangerous to drive across a level crossing when the gates are down as it is to drink and drive. There is no reason why there should be a noticeable difference in the punishments available for the two offences.
	As has always been our intention, we will introduce in Committee our idea of how an amendment to that effect might work. However, given what the Secretary of State has said today, I hope that we can have a constructive debate and end up with a sensible basic measure to improve safety on level crossings that we can all agree on. If motorists behave in a way that is totally thoughtless and reckless, the consequences can be serious—for them, and for the many innocent people on trains that go through level crossings.
	Finally, there is one big assumption behind the Bill that causes us anxiety and which we think will make it difficult to make its measures work. The Bill assumes that the police will deal with the problem of enforcing all the new penalties, and the Secretary of State said as much in his opening remarks. He mentioned the new force of traffic officers on our motorways, but he must realise that in many parts of the country, barely a handful of police are on duty at any one time. They have to cover large areas, and in too many places it is still very likely that people will get away with bad driving.
	The fact is that in many parts of the country, there are too few officers to do the job, and that is why many of the root causes of danger on our roads go unaddressed. The same is true of untaxed vehicles: in many areas, the police simply do not have the time to follow up every report of untaxed vehicles on street corners or in driveways filled with scruffy cars. I know that from my own constituency experience, but on a Saturday night, those same cars might well be the ones that are used to ply the unlicensed taxi trade, or driven around by people with a reckless disregard for the law and for the safety of others.
	That is why we must reform the way in which our police work. We need to make sure that they have the time to tackle problems such as I have described, and that they can do so systematically, not on an occasional basis. It is also why we need simple and achievable ways to tackle the problem posed by people who brazenly ignore the law. Once again, I believe that the Bill could have done much more in that regard.
	For instance, the Bill could have proposed ways to highlight whether a car was insured, so that all uninsured cars could be easily and automatically impounded. I heard what the Secretary of State said about notification cameras, which can spot registration plates and check them off against insurance registers, but other countries have much simpler systems—for example, a disc on a windscreen—to show whether a vehicle is insured. The Department has not displayed enough in the way of ideas, innovation or smart thinking when it comes to ways to tackle that a serious problem.
	The Bill could also have strengthened the sanctions available to police dealing with the problem of systematic offenders hiding behind false addresses and ignoring penalty notices. I hope that changes can be made to it in the later stages of its passage through the House that will tackle that problem. Moreover, the Bill says nothing about tackling vehicle cloning: that is a major problem for many people, and we have to deal with it.
	The Bill is a patchwork of bits and pieces—some of them good, some less so. Sadly, that is the hallmark of a Government who have proved themselves to be very good at tinkering, but not always so good at setting out a clear and long-term vision and strategy for our transport system and for road safety in Britain. We will seek to change that as the Bill goes through Committee.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to have a chance to contribute to the debate and to give an extremely warm welcome to the Bill. I think that the remarks of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) were somewhat churlish, as I believe that it contains a variety of measures that will give the police a much wider range of sanctions for many more offences than is currently the case. It will enable them to do many of the things that the hon. Gentleman described, and it will be for them and the local authorities to work out how to use the measures to improve road safety.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that the Bill did not have a strategic vision. I disagree: it maintains a clear focus on what is needed to improve road safety and deal with the different problems that arise. Moreover, implicit within it is a recognition that we need a culture change in our attitude to driving. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, but running through the Bill is a much stronger awareness of the fact that a person who gets into a car is getting into something that can be a dangerous weapon. Cars can be responsible for very serious accidents, as well as being a statement of our personal freedom.
	The Bill requires a culture change among the public. I ask the Government, as they move it forward, to make sure that information is issued about the change in responsibilities and that there are awareness campaigns to change attitudes to speaking on mobile phones while driving, children wearing safety belts in the back of cars, and speeding. The Opposition have a real responsibility to be party to that as well. Let us take the example of the debate about speed cameras. I suppose that we are not meant to be party political at this point, but I have heard, particularly from the Conservative party, constant criticism of speed cameras. The assumption is that they are there to raise money, when we all know—certainly, this is the case in Northamptonshire—that many people walking around today would be dead were it not for speed cameras and the move to bear down on speeding. A good number of young people have been spared very serious injury because speeding has been reduced.
	If we are going to achieve the changes that we can get out of the Bill, we require a culture change. I find it odd that, having said there is a great need to deal with problem drivers, the Conservative party opposes, or questions and undermines, one of the most radical proposals in the Bill, which has been welcomed, looked for and campaigned for by people outside this place as well as inside it. I refer to the proposal for a new offence of causing death by careless driving. I do not understand how it is possible to talk tough on driving and then say, "Oh, but we aren't going to have a separate offence of causing death by careless driving." If the Conservatives are serious about dealing with road safety and the horrible tragedies that result from bad or careless driving—whatever we want to call it—they must be consistent in their approach. I hope that, in Committee, they will suddenly see the light, have a road-to-Damascus conversion, as they have on so many other things, and support this important proposal.
	Over the years, many colleagues have pressed for a new offence of causing death by careless driving, because we have all heard the most harrowing tales of deaths caused by careless driving in our constituencies. I pay tribute to the predecessor of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who, as he knows, campaigned, as he has, on behalf of his constituents, and to many other Members who are still on the Labour Benches and who have done a vast amount of work over the years.
	I took up the matter in a private Member's Bill following consultation with young people in my constituency. It was one of those cases of seeing further when one sits on the shoulders of giants because colleagues have done much more work than I have. The young people chose it as the piece of legislation that they most wanted to see on the statute book, which is interesting, as many of the briefings sent to us by outside organisations pick up on the fact that driving and road safety issues have a particular impact on young people and are of particular concern to them.
	I thank the schools that took part in the consultation and supported the private Member's Bill: Kingsthorpe community college, Duston school, Weston Favell school, Northampton School for Girls, Thomas Becket school, Roade school and Unity college. In particular, they were moved by the story of Alexine Melnik, a constituent of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. She was a teenager who was killed by a careless driver. Her killer escaped with a derisory sentence. The schools met with Alexine's brother and parents, who joined them in lobbying the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), to get such a measure on the statute book. They followed the process through, and I hope that they will be able to come to the Committee to see the legislation they have campaigned for go through.

Tom Harris: I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in that I am not convinced that we should start jailing people for long periods on the basis that they are careless. Does my hon. Friend believe that every time a pedestrian is seriously injured or a killed by the driver of a car, the driver must always face a long prison sentence?

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. In working on my private Member's Bill, I had to talk through that issue with a number of people and, if he is happy for me to do so, I will deal with his point later. Certainly, there is an argument to be made. The details of how the measure is to work have to be spelled out, but the case for having such an offence on the statute book is overwhelming and well understood by the public, as well as being supported, I am happy to say, by the Government.
	Other than local cases, one reason why young people in my constituency supported the measure was the statistics on the number of young people killed in road traffic accidents each year. As we have heard, many of the people killed by careless drivers are children. A recent case that has been particularly highlighted took place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher). A little girl was holding her mother's hand when she was killed. In 1999, some 191 children under the age of 14 were killed on the road. Road accidents were probably the biggest single category of fatal accidents among children. In addition, 42,051 children under 15 were injured. The statistics also show that young drivers are much more likely to be involved and injured in accidents. A total of 64,000 drivers aged 16 to 24 were involved in road traffic accidents during the last year for which figures were available. Although young people account for only 4 per cent. of the driving population, they account for 13 per cent. of accidents on the roads.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also mentioned the need to focus on where accidents take place and which children are most at risk. I believe—I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm this in his winding-up speech—that the children most at risk are those in inner-city areas. There is a close correlation between poverty and road deaths among children. It is possible to consider speed limits in those areas and make sure that we tackle issues in areas where children are most likely to be killed or injured. With those kinds of measures and sanctions in place, the graduated penalties in the Bill are the right way to go about dealing with the very real problem of speeding.
	The offence of causing death by careless driving will address the burning sense of injustice held by the families of people killed in such accidents. A survey for the Department for Transport found that, when people were killed in road accidents and a conviction secured, only 20 per cent. of victims' families thought that justice had been served. So, even when the driver was caught and convicted and the victim's family at least had their day in court, there was still an overwhelming sense that justice had not been served.
	In addition—this comes partly to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell—there is a credibility gap in relation to offences and penalties in the existing law. There is nothing between causing death by dangerous driving and quite minor traffic offences. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is always room to consider carefully which charges can be used, but in the case of the child in the Burnley constituency, the driver could not be charged with dangerous driving, so he was charged with only the most minor offences. Imagine the feelings of someone who sees their child killed and the driver done for an offence such as driving without a licence.
	In the context of the penalties at the court's disposal, I welcome the new offence and the prison sentence that attaches to it. In my private Member's Bill I proposed a sentence of 10 years, but the five-year prison sentence fills the credibility gap by increasing the sanctions available to the courts.
	A further aspect is the likelihood of being charged with dangerous driving, which relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. From the briefings that we have had, which I am sure he also received, it seems that more and more traffic offenders are not being charged with dangerous driving, which has a high threshold. They tend to be charged with relatively minor offences, even when their driving mistakes were caused by gross negligence. The new penalties should help to redress the balance in the patterns of charging up till now.
	Against that background, I welcome the new offence of causing death by careless driving. It was introduced at Committee stage in the other place, and the penalties were reduced on Third Reading. I understand that at one point their lordships thought that they were removing entirely the possibility of imprisonment. In fact, they removed only the ability of magistrates courts to impose a prison sentence, but that reduced the effect of the provision. That flies in the face of the public demand for tougher sanctions for causing death by careless driving.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she accept that even with the Lords amendment, the new offence of causing death by careless driving will reach the statute book and in most cases a prison sentence would be available to the judge if the person were found guilty?

Sally Keeble: The offence would be on the statute book, but the penalties would be weaker and the magistrates courts would not have the option of imprisoning offenders. The possibility of community sentencing would also be lost. Outside organisations are concerned about the impact that that would have.
	There is a further point. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talked tough about dangerous driving and bad drivers, but resiled from that when it came to some of the details. I hope that he will reconsider. If we tell people that they must pay more careful attention to their driving, and if we take the bold step, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, of saying that they will otherwise go to prison, there is a need for consistency and care in the message that we send out and in what we tell drivers to do. If we blow hot and cold, people are left not knowing where they stand. That also dilutes the effectiveness of a Bill that deals with the range of driving behaviour, introducing more penalties and sending out robust messages about what people ought to be doing when they are in cars.

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Lady not accept, though, that we in the House have a duty not simply to send messages, but to make good law?

Sally Keeble: I entirely agree. The courts should have at their disposal a proper range of offences and penalties. There is clear consensus among everybody except the lawyers that there is a major gap between imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving and the minor traffic offences—except, of course, in the case of drink driving. There is a great gap in the middle as regards what the courts can do. It is important that they have available a range of offences and penalties—what the courts do is down to them—that properly recognise the different types of accident and levels of culpability, and that delivers to the public a sense that justice will be done if their loved ones are involved in an accident.

Mark Harper: If the law was changed as the hon. Lady hopes and the court had the power to impose tough sentences in cases of careless driving, the expectation would be set that that would happen. If, having considered all the circumstances, the court decided that what happened was a momentary lapse and did not merit a prison sentence, is there not a danger that victims would have an even greater sense of injustice if the penalties available were not used by the court?

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. When there is an accident, it is often difficult for people to accept that no one was to blame. If a relative is killed, they might never be satisfied with what happens afterwards and might always feel that no price is high enough to pay for the death of their relative. People must be supported through that process, by agencies such as Victim Support. That is a different matter from the proper range of penalties that should be available to the courts, that fill the credibility gap and that meet the public's sense of justice.
	The courts must receive proper guidance about the powers that they are to be given. I would not dare to interpret the case cited by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about a driver avoiding an animal and hitting a cyclist instead. There must be proper guidance about what constitutes culpable carelessness. Everybody who has driven has had momentary lapses. The question is when that is culpable and when it is a case of driving without the due regard and attention expected of a careful, competent and considerate driver. All that can be dealt with in guidance.
	Earlier, I raised the issue of driving under the influence of drugs. It is acknowledged that there are problems in testing for that. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department, in their work with the Home Office, to ensure that progress is made in developing a scientific test that can be conducted at the roadside. I understand from the Library notes that the roadside tests include walking along a straight line, touching the tip of one's nose and standing on one leg. To people who have seen the consequences of an accident resulting from someone driving under the influence of drugs, citing such evidence in court seems a less than convincing argument or test.

Stephen Ladyman: I want to make sure that my hon. Friend realises that that test is used only to indicate to a police officer that somebody might be under the influence of drugs. The person will be taken back to a police station, where they will be tested properly and convincing evidence produced.

Sally Keeble: I understand that, but I hope that we might develop, even as a rule of thumb at the roadside, an approach that is more convincing than such tests, which are subjective, as I think is commonly recognised, and are inadequate given the problems of drug taking that exist in society, particularly among younger people.
	I strongly support the Bill. I hope that we can get it through the Committee stage and on to the statute book very quickly. I also hope that the Opposition will change their mind on death caused by careless driving. For one thing, some of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will be placed in some difficulties, after they have campaigned very strongly for a different approach. I think that the Bill will be warmly welcomed by people outside this place, and it will contribute to real improvements in road safety.

Tom Brake: Perhaps not surprisingly, I support many of the measures in the Bill, as well as the Government's objectives of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the road by 40 per cent. by 2010, and by 50 per cent. among children.
	Good progress has been made on this issue, which we welcome, but as the Secretary of State said, nine people still die every day on our roads, and we need to ensure that the issue is given necessary priority. I tabled some parliamentary questions today to see how many people are working on road safety in comparison with rail or aviation safety, to find out how many resources are put into these different areas and whether we are giving the right priority to this important issue.
	There are some areas in which progress is not as speedy as in others. On teenagers, for instance, and particularly cyclists and pedestrians in the 12 to 15-year-old group, there are clearly problems. I welcome the fact that some specific advertising campaigns are being run to try to address that group. As hon. Members will know, accident statistics for motor cyclists have risen since 1997. More focus is needed on that area, as well as on deaths involving drink-driving, which have increased by 2 per cent. since 2002. Progress is being made, but there are areas in which we are slipping back or on which more focus is needed.
	The Government cannot take action soon enough on hand-held mobile phones. I am sure that all hon. Members will have witnessed improper use, whether by a lorry driver who uses his mobile phone while negotiating a narrow road or by someone driving a car with their phone jammed to their ear by their shoulder, while they steer with their free hand if we are lucky, or with their knees if we are unlucky. The message that using a hand-held mobile phone is dangerous—more dangerous, in fact, than drink-driving—has not got through. I hope that the measures before us will ensure that that message hits home.
	The Bill must also focus on speed, on which there is some agreement between the parties, but also some disagreement. I was interested that the official Opposition spokesman was unable to say whether the Conservative party would call for the speed limit to be increased to 80 mph. We have on record, however, the fact that in June 2005, the Conservative spokesman in the House of Lords clearly called for an 80 mph limit to be considered. We will await with interest the Conservative transport policy, which I have been told will be launched by the end of this year, and in which we will perhaps see the detail of the policy. If the proposal is to increase the speed limit to 80 mph, I shall be interested to see how the environmental aspects will be addressed.
	The Secretary of State has explained the reasons why he thinks that it is appropriate for a reduced number of points to be available to people who exceed the speed limit by only a "relatively" small amount. I am very worried about the message that that sends out. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that there was a need for consistency in Government policy. I am not convinced that saying to people, "Well, if you exceed the speed limit by only a small amount, the number of points that you get will be lower than those given to someone who exceeds it by a greater amount" is a consistent message. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by drivers travelling at 35 mph as opposed to 30 mph are twice as likely to be killed. Sending out any message suggesting that people can get away with breaking the limit by a small amount and that that is not a problem will be a matter of significant concern.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman gave the example of a cyclist being hit by a speeding motorist. In those circumstances, is it not likely that the motorist will face being charged with another offence in addition to speeding?

Tom Brake: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, but I am still worried about the message that is being sent out by differentiating between smaller and larger speed excesses, taking into account the fact that people are twice as likely to die with just a 5 mph increase over the 30 mph limit.
	The Secretary of State has put on the record his support for safety cameras, on which the Liberal Democrats broadly agree. Such cameras have a clear role to play as part of an array of measures for improving road safety, and I do not think that politicians of any party should be afraid to say as much. The Bill also tackles the issue of devices, and identifying devices that can detect radar. Perhaps we need to await the official Conservative Opposition policy, but I understand that the Conservative spokesman in the other place argued in favour of banning equipment that could block or jam signals, but also argued that we should perhaps not be so worried about equipment that can detect signals. Some years ago, I engaged in an interesting debate in this Chamber involving Alan Clark, who suggested that such equipment is used by drivers as a means of measuring speed, perhaps overlooking somewhat the fact that most cars have speedometers for that purpose.
	Of course, we support the measures to require repeat drink-driving offenders to retake their driving tests. Other hon. Members have already referred to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety evidence on drink-driving. I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State's response, in which he gave a justification that has been given previously for not supporting a reduction in the drink-driving limit to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood—a limit that is commonly used across Europe. The Government must explain in more detail why they do not support that proposal. We want to see a decrease in deaths and serious injuries, and PACTS evidence suggests that 65 lives a year would be saved as a result of reducing the limit to 50 mg and that 230 people a year would be saved from serious injury. Perhaps the Minister will produce some evidence that challenges the PACTS analysis, but if he does not do so, we need a firm indication of why he is not willing to support a measure that, according to PACTS, has significant safety implications.
	We welcome the provision of facilities to raise fixed penalties or to secure deposits from foreign or non-GB licence holders. I have one caveat: hon. Members may have been stopped by the police and fined on the spot in another country, in which case they may have wondered whether their cash went into the coffers of the relevant body or whether it supplemented that police officer's weekly income. We know that that would not happen here, but whatever mechanism is implemented, drivers must be sure that their fines arrive in the right place, so we must provide transparency.
	We welcome measures to stop the clocking of vehicles, but the Government need to do more work on vehicle registration. A couple of weeks ago, I got a letter from an organisation that asks drivers to confirm the mileage on vehicles at the time at which they were sold. However, the letter asked me to confirm the mileage on a vehicle that I have never owned, so there are clearly issues around ensuring the accuracy of such databases.
	I welcome the Government's push for higher standards for professional driving instructors. On the face of it, this is a constituency point, but I suspect that all hon. Members know about it: I hope that higher standards for professional driving instructors will allow us to get away from a small number of streets in each of our constituencies being used repeatedly by driving instructors to enable their clients to practise U-turns, reversing around corners and manoeuvres. I have been lobbied on that point, and I am sure that other hon. Members have too.
	The safe transport of radioactive material is a specific issue that may fall outside the remit of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Bill will help in cases such as that in March 2002, when radioactive material in cancer treatment equipment from a hospital in Leeds went on a merry journey around the country during which it emitted a beam of radiation which, according to the Health and Safety Executive, was between 100 and 1,000 times higher than what would normally be considered to be a high dose.

Stephen Ladyman: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the case that we prosecuted and in which the offenders were found? If so, what is he complaining about?

Tom Brake: I am simply saying that one of the purposes of the Bill is to address the safe transport of radioactive material. The Minister prosecuted the case, but the vehicle went on its merry journey across the country unleashing radiation doses between 100 and 1,000 times higher than what is normally considered to be a very high dose. He should not need to stand up and say, "we prosecuted", because the incident should not have happened in the first place. Will he confirm that the provisions in the Bill on the safe transport of radioactive waste will ensure that such incidents do not occur in future?
	We support the Government's promotion of best practice, and I am sure that all hon. Members can provide good examples of it. An organisation called Transportation Planning (international) has built a website focusing on helping motor cyclists to improve their hazard perception, which is a key issue in road safety.

Paul Rowen: The Minister has said that off-road bikes and small vehicles are difficult to deal with, but the matter could be addressed by designating public bridleways and footpaths as areas in which such vehicles cannot be driven. The issue is serious—it is a matter of great concern for horse riders and walkers—but the Bill does not address it.

Tom Brake: From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State has said that the Bill addresses that matter, and I hope that the Minister will explain exactly how it does so.
	The Secretary of State used the parliamentary term, "rubbish", to describe reports that automatic number-plate-reading technology will be used to spot people who are not wearing their seat belts or who are using their mobile phones. Is he saying that that technology will never be used in that way? I am not necessarily expressing a view on whether that would be a good or bad thing, but if the technology is available, why would the Secretary of State exclude the possibility of its ever being used in that way?

David Kidney: Far be it from me to explain what is in the Secretary of State's mind, but the report was "rubbish" because it was a PACTS report from six months ago rather than a Government proposal. It was about using technology to detect offences rather than using surveillance to watch people as they go about their business. The matter is currently the subject of an investigation by the Transport Committee, which seems reasonable to me.

Tom Brake: It will be interesting to see the Transport Committee recommendations, which I am sure the Minister and the Secretary of State will consider carefully. We will wait to see whether the Secretary of State needs to row back from the statement that those reports were "rubbish".
	I have already referred to the official Opposition's proposal to increase the speed limit to 80 mph, which we will examine carefully.

Chris Grayling: I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty this afternoon—he does not know whether he has been reshuffled and whether he will be Liberal Democrat transport spokesman by the end of the debate. He is curiously interested in Conservative party policy making, although he has not set out any Liberal Democrat road safety ideas. Will he set out those ideas in the remainder of his remarks?

Tom Brake: I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman looks back at Hansard he will see that I have clearly set out a number of Liberal Democrat positions on the Bill. He will have an opportunity to consider our proposals in greater detail in Committee. Those proposals will be put forward by whoever is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on that stage of the Bill.
	We agree with the Conservatives on the proposals made by the British Red Cross. It no longer suggests changes to the practical driving test to allow first aid to be incorporated in it, but is instead considering whether there are grounds to change the theory test, and possibly the hazard perception test, to include elements of first aid. That would be sensible because, according to the Red Cross, 57 per cent. of deaths caused by road accidents happen in the first few minutes after a crash before the emergency services arrive, and up to 85 per cent. of those could be prevented if first aid were administered immediately. The Minister will be aware that on Second Reading in the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham said:
	"Let me make the obvious point that we accept what the noble Lord says. We are considering extending the test to include additional first aid material."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 1609.]
	I hope that the Minister is able to clarify what progress has been made on that and whether the Government's hand will be forced, to some extent, by what is going to happen in 2008 with European Union legislation relating to commercial drivers having to demonstrate that they have basic first aid skills.
	I hope that the Minister can clarify another matter that was raised on Second Reading—the use of rear seatbelts for 14 and 15-year-olds. I understand that there is a gap in the provisions that could be sorted out simply by making it the driver's responsibility to ensure that they wear seatbelts.
	Other Members have mentioned the conspicuousness of heavy goods vehicles. In the other place, their lordships decided to amend the Bill to include a reference to conspicuousness stating that
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require the fitting of retro-reflective tape".
	Will the Minister clarify, first, whether he is willing to accept that change, and secondly, whether he would be willing to accept a stronger provision requiring that the Secretary of State "shall" ensure that retro-reflective tape is fitted? HGVs have been involved in a significant number of accidents, which would presumably be reduced by adding such reflective strips. In 2001, there were 9,000 collisions in which an HGV was struck by another vehicle. In 34 per cent. of those cases, the HGV was struck on its side. It is not unreasonable to assume that a significant number of those accidents could have been avoided, or their seriousness reduced, as a result of fitting that tape. That would cost about £100 to £150 per vehicle—not a significant extra cost given that the retail price of a new vehicle is in the order of £100,000 and that it could make a great difference in terms of reducing road accidents and improving road safety.
	Given the scale of road accidents and deaths—nine per day—Liberal Democrats argue, as we did in the Lords, that there is a need for a road accidents investigations board, similar to those that exist for aviation and rail, to investigate the accidents that occur. Some of those will be one-offs, while some will not. Sometimes there will be a problem in a particular location. In other cases, it will be difficult to identify a pattern when looking at individual accidents, but by looking at the totality it may be possible to draw conclusions from them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who considered this when he was our transport spokesman, found that Sweden has a similar organisation, which noted that because Sweden is a rocky, mountainous country, there are often large rocks by the roadside or in the road. It identified that as an issue of national significance that it needed to resolve. That is the sort of matter that the board could consider.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bath, who is proactive on these issues, has requested, possibly because he has the largest pedicab manufacturer in the country in his constituency, that we consider pedicab licensing, or at least allowing local authorities to choose to license pedicabs if they are so inclined.
	I am sure that many Members will have been lobbied about the issue of sleep disorders. The research shows that one in six HGV drivers suffers from a severe sleeping disorder of which they are often unaware. I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan), who is in the Chamber, for that information. I hope that she may have an opportunity to refer to it shortly. The Government could focus more attention on that matter.
	There is much to be welcomed in the Bill and much that we can support, but there are many issues to which we will need to return in Committee, including drink-drive limits and reduced speed limits of 20 mph and 30 mph in residential areas—a significant matter that I did not mention. It is unacceptable that the limit on unclassified roads is 60 mph, which is completely inappropriate in many cases. The Committee is the right place to discuss those issues. We therefore do not seek to detain the House further and are happy to join the Government and the official Opposition in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: This week, my Select Committee—the Science and Technology Committee—is taking evidence in New York and Washington. I pulled out of the visit at the last minute because I had promised several of my constituents that I would not only push for a change in the law in this policy area, but bring their concerns to the Floor of the House and try to express some of their grief.
	I want particularly to discuss clauses 20 to 33, as amended in the other place, on new offences, increases in penalties, and other provisions about offences. Since my election to Parliament in 1997, I have been outraged by the outcome of several trials following serious road traffic accidents that have resulted in the death of my constituents. The first family that I dealt with was the Willis family, whose son Gareth was killed at the age of 29 on 22 May 1999 in a head-on crash on the crown of a bridge by a hit-and-run driver while riding his motorcycle. His son, Joseph, aged seven, was a pillion passenger. Although he was thrown off the bike into a field and badly injured, he fortunately survived. However, the car driver ran away from the scene of the accident, although he gave himself up the following day.
	Initially, the 31-year-old driver was given a 30-month sentence for causing death by dangerous driving and banned from driving for five years. Half the sentence was suspended for community service. The driver had had only two driving lessons, was driving at more than 50 mph in a 30 mph restricted area without a licence or insurance. He had several previous car crime convictions and had been drinking earlier that day.
	Gareth's family were devastated by their loss and especially by the sentence—so much so that they came to see me. The Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Appeal and the driver's sentence was increased, but only by one year. Regrettably, the appeal was heard on 16 November 2000 without the family being informed or invited to make an oral impact submission, which they were entitled to make, about the effect of the accident on the family.
	Another tragedy with which I have dealt was the death of eight-year-old Billy Joe Dean in the village of Stoneclough, which lies between Bolton and Bury. A 40-year-old male was riding his 1,000 cc Suzuki motor cycle on 24 August 2002, having just left a public house. Evidence was given in court that he accelerated to such an extent that he performed a wheelie as he approached a double bend. The motor cyclist lost control of the vehicle, which glanced off an approaching Porsche and hit Billy Joe as he was walking along the pavement. Billy Joe died almost immediately from his injuries because he was crushed by the motor cycle, which flew through the air and hit him against a garden wall. The accident shook the village of Stoneclough and the BBC chose it as one of two cases of causing death by dangerous driving that it included in a documentary, which was broadcast with a view to getting the change in the law that the Bill tries to establish.
	The motor cyclist received a six-year jail sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, driving without insurance and driving while disqualified. The sentence was reduced to five years in the Court of Appeal. He was also banned from driving for eight years. He had badly injured himself in the collision and submitted a guilty plea in court. Like the Willis family, the Dean family learned of the reduction of the sentence on appeal through reading about it in the Bolton Evening News. Both families were outraged at the outcome of the trials and the way in which they, as indirect victims of their sons' deaths, had been treated by the British judicial system.
	The Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 10 to 14 years, but the courts hardly ever apply the sentence at the top end of the range.
	Six other tragic accidents, which occurred in my constituency or a few yards outside its boundary, led to the deaths of three-year-old Amicie Nwokeochar on   15 November 2003; 36-year-old Lisa Halligan and 28-year-old Michael Jeffries, killed in the same accident on 1 May 2004; 13-year-old Carla Bate on 8 August 2004; nine-year-old Ellesse Ruth Gore on 19 October 2005; 46-year-old Ellen Newman, killed, like Billy Joe, on the bends in Stoneclough village on 5 January this year, and 45-year-old Laura Entwistle on 21 January this year.
	I have been closely involved with the Nwokeochar tragedy, which was caused by a gentleman who was a few weeks away from his 90th birthday. I have applied for an Adjournment debate to bring to light the safety record of older drivers and I shall therefore not dwell on that incident today. I am also involved with the family of Ellen Newman. They recently approached me for help.
	In two of the six accidents that I just cited, several other people were seriously injured. In four, the driver left the scene of the accident. The families of the victims of such tragedies often find it hard to accept the significantly reduced sentences that are given when the driver enters a guilty plea. That is a problem. Victims' families also know that prisoners can be released on a Parole Board hearing after the half-way point of the sentence. They will be released on licence two thirds of the way through a sentence in any case. In some cases, the drivers are released from prison not long after the trials, when the families continue to grieve. I do not believe that those families ever stop grieving.
	When a person—they are nearly all young men—drives a stolen car without a licence or insurance at high speeds in restricted areas, especially if he has previous convictions for road traffic offences, or has taken alcohol or other drugs that affect his ability to drive, and kills another person, often leaving the scene of the accident, the courts should inflict a severe sentence, which takes account of all the offences committed on the day. Drivers who kill while committing multiple offences should be charged with a greater offence than causing death by dangerous driving. The offence of vehicle homicide has been floated in some quarters.
	"Dangerous Driving and the Law", an evaluation of the operation of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which was commissioned by the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and published in 2002, reports that 46 per cent. of the dangerous driving offences that it examined were committed by multiple offenders—those, mainly young males, who have previous road traffic convictions.
	It is clear to me from hon. Members' contributions, including mine, since the 1997 general election, that thelaw on serious traffic offences is regarded as unsatisfactory. We reflect the view of the public, who are rightly outraged by a legal system that considers death and injury to be less serious if it is caused by someone driving a motor vehicle. Those who commit crimes such as petty theft or burglary regularly receive more severe sentences from the courts than those who kill—often wilfully—on our British road system.
	For those reasons, I welcome the new offences, for which the Bill provides, of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, with a maximum sentence—hopefully, in each case—of two years. An amazing 1.2 million drivers—one in 20 motorists—regularly drive without insurance.
	In England and Wales, an indictable offence of manslaughter is available but few prosecutions are made under that heading. RoadPeace believes that the proper charge following a culpable road death is manslaughter. However, I welcome the fact that the Bill allows, for the first time, an alternative verdict to be brought when prosecution for an offence of manslaughter fails.
	The test for dangerous driving in section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is defined thus:
	"Did the driver's driving fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and would it be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous?"
	It can be difficult to obtain a conviction of causing death by dangerous driving under that definition, as police forces throughout the country will confirm.
	Trials collapse for various reasons, including a lack of convincing evidence produced by either the police or the forensic services, failure of witnesses to convince either a judge or a jury of the driver's guilt, and sometimes a badly handled prosecution case. Even in successful cases, the sentences applied are often low, given that the driver's behaviour has resulted in one and sometimes more deaths. The courts do not appear to appreciate that the maximum sentence that is currently available is 14 years.
	The lesser offence of dangerous driving is an either-way offence, with a maximum penalty of only two years' imprisonment. The summary offence of careless and inconsiderate driving is available in two forms: driving without due care and attention, or driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. Clause 23 increases the maximum penalty for the offence of careless driving from £2,500 to £5,000. I welcome that.
	A new indictable offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs was introduced, on the recommendation of the 1988 North report, by the Road Traffic Act 1991. A further indictable offence of causing injury by furious driving was introduced by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and right hon. and hon. Members might have noticed that the Bill retains that rather curious offence.
	The lesser charge of careless driving often appears inappropriate, particularly in cases in which there has been a fatality and the evidence points to the fact that there has been an element of dangerous driving. The gap between the higher offence of dangerous driving and the lower offence of careless driving is seen by many, including me, as just too great. That is why I support the introduction of the new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, with a maximum sentence of five years, as set out in clause 20.
	That is one of the more controversial aspects of the Bill. It is almost exclusively opposed by the legal profession, as it will make accidental conduct seriously criminal and worthy of imprisonment for the first time. However, the Crown Prosecution Service has stated:
	"The new offence will be valuable in bridging the existing gap between causing death by dangerous driving and careless driving. In the most difficult cases that fall very close to the line dividing these two offences, it will enable prosecutors to place both offences on the indictment, thus allowing the jury to make their assessments of the facts."
	Research has found that the introduction of a new offence of causing death by careless driving was favoured by only 55 per cent. of those who responded to a postal survey—not a great percentage. Nevertheless, most right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate since I came to the House in 1997 appear to believe that the consequences of a motorist's action, especially in provable cases of dangerous driving, should be taken into consideration by the courts. Although the present law allows that, the courts tend to behave differently. Even with a charge of careless driving, the fact that death has been a consequence should be a serious consideration in some cases, but at present it is not, even though it has been allowed by the law in England since the Simmonds appeal in January 1999.
	It is my opinion that the most serious cases of road traffic accidents involving death and serious injury should be dealt with by the Crown court; the majority are dealt with at present by magistrates courts. That was also the opinion expressed in the Transport Committee's report on traffic law and its enforcement, published at the end of 2004.
	Probably one of the most difficult cases that I have been closely involved with is the Haque case. My constituent, five-year-old Hishamul Haque, was killed at the Camelot theme park at Charnock Richard, near Chorley in Lancashire, on the evening of 18 April 2004. The Haque family had travelled with their relatives and several children to the theme park in three cars during the morning, and had spent the entire day enjoying themselves at Camelot. They decided to return to their cars at about 5.30 pm, where they had some refreshments. Then, a game of football began in the almost empty car parking area. On the fringe of the car park are larger bays for the parking of coaches and buses, and the two areas are separated by another area which is marked by broad white lines and is used as a service road to the car parks.
	A service bus entered the car park just after 6 pm and proceeded to drive along the service road. The bus driver admits seeing the group playing football to his right, and also admits having seen Hishamul Haque chase the football out of the crowd in his direction and obviously across the path of the bus. The driver's explanation was that he kept to the left of the service road to avoid a collision with the young boy, who was running from his right towards the bus. However, the driver did not brake to stop the bus, and neither did he sound his horn. He also claims not to have seen or heard Mr. Haque, the father, shouting and gesticulating at him about the approaching danger. Tragically, it was too late and Hishamul was crushed by the front and rear wheels of the bus. The collision occurred in the part of the car park reserved for coaches and buses, to the left of the service road.
	There has been a dispute about the speed of the bus. The driver claimed that he was driving at between 10 and 15 mph, while Mr. Haque claimed that he was driving at between 30 and 35 mph. Other witnesses, and evidence from a police reconstruction of the accident, support the driver's account. Lancashire police arrested the driver on a charge of suspected manslaughter. However, following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, the driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Before His Honour Judge Slinger in the Crown court at Preston on 9 December 2004, the defence was successful in applying for the proceedings to be dismissed on the ground that the evidence did not meet the test for dangerous driving in section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to which I have just referred.
	Obviously, the family were devastated by this decision and they came to see me for advice. I arranged a meeting with the Crown Prosecution Service at Preston to discuss Judge Slinger's decision. On 13 to 15 February 2006, a trial was held in Chorley magistrates court before Judge Ward, and the driver was acquitted of a careless driving charge.
	While Britain has the safest roads in Europe, too many people still die every year and 10 times more are injured. Significantly, almost one third of the deaths are caused by a person at work on the roads. I welcome the progress that the Bill makes, and I congratulate the Transport Committee and the Department for Transport on all the work that they have done to allow the Bill to come before the House. During the last summer vacation, I read many research reports published by the Department, and I am full of praise for the amount of work that it has done. I am grateful for this opportunity to enter into a debate on a policy area that is of great interest to many of my constituents.

Greg Knight: We can all support the aims of the Road Safety Bill, because safety should be paramount on our roads at all times, and all classes of road user have a part to play—not only vehicle drivers but pedestrians, cyclists and passengers. Safety on our roads cannot be achieved merely by soaking motorists with fines and penalty points. The most effective approach is a mixture of education, incentive and, when a transgression has occurred, punishment, whether against a motorist for speeding, a cyclist for ignoring a red traffic light or a pedestrian for jaywalking—that is, stepping off the kerb into the highway when it is unsafe to do so. This is an ongoing battle, and it will not be won by the passage of the Bill. However, Members in all parties will have played their part if, during its parliamentary passage, we seek to improve its scope.
	I turn first to the Bill's contents, before making one or two observations on matters that are—for the moment, at any rate—outwith its scope. Some of its provisions are non-contentious, and rightly so. The provisions on road safety grants are to be welcomed. It is right and proper that the income from fines should be used for local transport facilities, or to fund road safety improvements. Similarly, I welcome the provisions for graduated fixed penalties, and on graduated fixed penalty points. Those proposals make sense; graduations should certainly apply to points as well as to fines. Indeed, when the breach of the law has been minute, or there are exceptional circumstances, there might be a case for nil points being imposed. I hope that that is something we can examine in detail in Committee. Flexibility is important so that, as far as possible, punishment always fits the crime.
	I have some concerns about vehicle examiners giving fixed penalty notices. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will address them. The police are trained in road traffic matters and the rules of evidence. Consequently, an honest policeman doing his job has a sense of fairness and justice when dealing with a motorist. If we give the power to issue fixed penalty notices to vehicle examiners, what training will they have? Will they be required to maintain a notebook in which to write down any comments made by a motorist that may be relevant in any plea of mitigation? What guidance will be given about when and where they should operate? Will they still need to be accompanied by an experienced police officer? If not, what powers will they have to stop a vehicle on the highway? I hope that the Minister can answer those questions when he addresses us later.
	Clause 5 and schedule 1 clearly envisage a system in which fixed penalties are issued when the offences are detected remotely—that is, when video footage is viewed and vehicles that may not have insurance or a valid MOT are identified. Will the Minister consider formulating guidelines so that provision can be made for a camera to photograph and monitor vehicles before they are stopped by vehicle examiners on appropriate occasions?
	During busy periods, it would make sense for vehicle examiners to have someone viewing a screen showing vehicles some distance away so that vehicles that have insurance and a current MOT can be allowed to pass without being pulled over. Vehicle examiners could then focus on those vehicles that have already been identified as perhaps being shady in some respect or as being on the road unlawfully. Where a law-abiding motorist is going about his business, every effort should be made to prevent him from being stopped unnecessarily and thereby having his journey time lengthened. I think that that makes sense, and I hope that the Minister does, too. Will he reassure the House that if these examiners are given the powers envisaged in the Bill, they will not suddenly appear in every constituency setting up road blocks and stopping traffic merely to raise more money for the Government? I hope that they will have a duty to behave reasonably, not oppressively.
	The provisions in clause 11 relating to financial penalty deposits will be welcomed on both sides of the House. They are clearly aimed at foreign truckers who are competing for work with British truckers. Foreign truckers are, generally speaking, able to put cheaper fuel in their vehicles, and once they get to this country they often flout our laws and ignore fines when they are imposed. I warmly welcome the provisions in clause 11, which are long overdue. Most law-abiding motorists will welcome them too. But will they be used only against heavy goods vehicles, or will they also be used against private vehicles?
	I shall give the Minister an example. Some years ago, I was introduced to an American gentleman who was over here studying. He revealed that his studies were expected to take three years or so. He had brought over an American vehicle, a Chevrolet Corvette. For those who do not know what that is, it is a powerful sports car. His idea was to use his American car with American plates while pursuing his studies and to sell the car over here when he concluded them and returned to America. I was appalled and alarmed to discover that he had allowed his insurance and the American equivalent of vehicle excise duty to lapse, but had kept the car on American plates. He thought it was a rather good wheeze to have motoring on the cheap while he was in the UK. That sort of behaviour is to be deplored. I know that it does not occur on the same scale as heavy goods vehicle drivers ignoring their fines, but does the Minister intend clause 11 to catch people who are in the UK for the time being and are using a vehicle registered overseas which does not have valid tax and insurance? Those cases ought to be caught by clause 11.
	I am less sceptical than my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about alcohol ignition interlocks, but in Committee we should look closely at how the Minister thinks they will work, and at the ways in which some people might seek to get round them. I have heard that if a motorist fills up two or three balloons of the sort that are used at parties while he is sober and when he gets into his car after he has had a drink he connects one of them to the interlock, it will release the ignition so that the car can be started. We need to look at ways in which the unscrupulous, dishonest and drunk motorist could abuse this system if we approve it.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because he is one the leading experts on this subject. On foreign number plates, I do not know if he is aware that in east Anglia there are a large number of east European migrant workers, many of them doing an excellent job working in the food processing industry in particular, and many of them have brought their cars over. There are examples where serious offences have been committed and the police have been unable to do anything about them.

Greg Knight: I share my hon. Friend's hope that the Bill, particularly the clauses that relate to the exchange of information, will bring an end to that practice. I hope that we can arrive at a situation where the exchange of information with overseas Governments allows us to check vehicles. If they should not be on the road, I would favour their being impounded and confiscated.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman mentioned two points of interest; they will be referred to again in Committee, so I shall not go into too much detail. The first related to first aid and whether we should require a person taking a driving test to have a basic knowledge of first aid. At first blush, it is quite a good idea. However, I took my driving test 40 years ago, and if I had been required to learn the basics of first aid then, I would probably have forgotten them by now—so I would not welcome having to advise an injured person I came across by the roadside about the first aid attention he should receive. The idea is worthless unless there is a mechanism for making sure that motorists are kept up to date.

Alison Seabeck: As a former lifeguard who has gone through all the training—although I have used my skills only outside a swimming pool—I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that skills have to be continually upgraded if they are to be used. But basic skills have been reasonably standard for some time, and we could save lives if motorists understood the basics and were able to take initial action.

Greg Knight: The hon. Lady and I do not disagree on this point. If we were to have a free vote now, I think that on balance, I would go into the lobby for having some basic training. If we can save just one life, it is worth doing.

Tom Brake: The proposal would of course apply only to new applicants, not to people such as the right hon. Gentleman who gained their licence a number of years ago.

Greg Knight: I realise that, but my point was that with time people who have taken their test become mature drivers, so at any one time there may be only a small percentage of motorists on the road who have up-to-date knowledge of first aid. If the provision is to be effective, we need to consider giving refresher courses—but that is something that we can properly explore in Committee.
	My next point is about cycle helmets. The Secretary of State said that views on the issue were fairly evenly divided. I agree, but I am alarmed that the Government are sanctioning a change in the highway code, and it will recommend that cyclists wear a cycle helmet. That sits ill with the fact that the Government are saying that as a matter of policy they are on the fence. In that case, why does the highway code argue that cycle helmets are necessary? If the highway code says that, there is a danger that soon lawyers will be arguing that if a child is knocked off a bike by a motorist who is guilty of careless driving, any damages in a civil case should be reduced if the child was not wearing a helmet. If the highway code is to be altered in that way, Ministers need to reflect again on their position.

Tom Brake: If the highway code were changed in that way, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would be a risk of contributory negligence where cyclists were not using designated cycle paths?

Greg Knight: The argument of contributory negligence could certainly be used in that example and many others, which is why it is important to send a clear message to all road users—not just motorists, but cyclists too—about what they should or should not do. I hope that the Government will give that clear message before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage.
	I have some questions about the operation of clause 22 and schedule 4. I should declare an interest, as I am the owner of a number of historic and classic motor vehicles, some of which are subject to the statutory off-road notification procedure, although they are all insured, so the provisions do not affect me personally. However, there is growing concern among the classic car fraternity about the scope of the provisions, so when the Minister winds up I should like him to clarify how wide he intends them to be.
	I realise that the explanatory notes do not form part of the legislation and that they are for the guidance and benefit of Members, but in paragraph 86, on page 16, the Government set out their view of the scope of the provision on insurance:
	"Other exceptions may apply where the vehicle is no longer kept by the registered keeper; it is not kept for use on a road or other public place or has been stolen."
	Precisely what do the Government mean by the words
	"it is not kept for use on a road or other public place?"
	Do they mean a vehicle not kept for current use on a road, or for current or future use on a road?
	At present, if a classic vehicle is undergoing restoration, the owner may decide not to use it for a couple of years so they take it off the road, fill in a SORN form, which is sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and acknowledged, and are then under no further duty whatever. Although the owner of a motor vehicle, even one undergoing restoration, ought to have insurance—especially if the vehicle is valuable—at present there is no requirement to insure that vehicle. Will that situation change, and if so, will it change both for vehicles subject to SORN and for those that are exempt? As I understand the DVLA rules, a vehicle that has been off the road since 31 January 1998 is exempt from the SORN procedure. Let us suppose that a family has an heirloom—perhaps a vintage Bentley—the wheels have been removed, the engine is seized and the vehicle is in a garage, but at some point members of the family hope to put it back on the road. Under the new provisions, will they be required to take out insurance?

Stephen Ladyman: rose—

Greg Knight: If the Minister wants to answer me now, I shall be delighted to give way.

Stephen Ladyman: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me advance notice that he was thinking of raising that point, which I know he wants to explore further in Committee. The answer to his question is no; the intention is that it will not be necessary for such vehicles to be insured. Either they will be SORNed, in which case there will be no need for insurance, or there will have been no licensing activity since 1998, so a SORN will not be necessary.

Greg Knight: I am most grateful to the Minister. His intervention will have put many minds at rest.
	I have one more question about this part of the Bill. Where a vehicle has been seized but the owner produces documents and pays any dues, the explanatory notes say:
	"If the vehicle has already been disposed of, the regulations may provide for a sum to be paid to the vehicle's owner provided the claim is made within a prescribed period."
	That sounds reasonable. Presumably, the sum to be paid will actually be a proper recompense for the seizure and crushing of the vehicle and not a paltry amount that reflects only 10 or 20 per cent. of the vehicle's value. I am assuming from the wording that there is good will behind the provision, and that the Minister intends the regulation to recompense the owner properly. He is nodding, so I am obliged to him for that assurance.
	Clause 45 refers to the range of particulars to be included in the vehicle's register. We all understand why it is desirable to include mileage, to stop clocking—the unlawful practice, mainly but not exclusively, of some second-hand car dealers, who realise that if they wind back the odometer they can vastly increase the vehicle's value on the second-hand market. I welcome that aspect of the provisions, but I hope that they will not be used for an identity card-like collation of personal information. I hope that we do not reach the point where, for example, the vehicle keeper has to give his passport number or date of birth. I realise that the form already includes a space for the date of birth, but the information is voluntary, not compulsory. If the Minister intends to broaden the provisions to make vehicle keepers give far more personal information, I hope that he will tell the House so on Second Reading, rather than let that intention emerge in Committee.
	I intervened earlier to ask the Secretary of State about clause 50, which I consider very important. I am pleased that Ministers are thinking about ways of addressing this problem, although they may not feel that clause 50 is the answer. The clause provides for a specific offence when a motorist deliberately seeks to drive across a railway level crossing when warning signs are flashing to indicate that he should not do so. It provides for a period of imprisonment, a fine and up to six points on the licence.
	I rather agree with my colleagues on the Front Bench. I hope that whatever the formulation to which we return, Ministers will consider whether it might be more appropriate to provide for a compulsory period of disqualification. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell that the period should be 12 months, as it is for drink-driving, but it could certainly be argued that even in the most marginal cases a motorist should be deprived of his licence—if only for a month or two—so that the dangerous circumstances that he has created can be brought home to him.
	When I was in Leicester the other day visiting friends, I happened to pick up a copy of the excellent local paper, the Leicester Mercury. On page 8, a report headed "Drivers risk death in level-crossing dashes" said:
	"Nearly 30 motorists risked their lives last year by dashing across level crossings in front of oncoming trains.
	British Transport Police say 27 drivers in the county had ignored flashing lights and descending barriers.
	Seven of the offences were so bad they were classed as near-misses by rail bosses."
	That is what was happening in just one county. The problem is still with us. None of us wants to see a repeat of the horrific accidents that have occurred in the recent past, and I hope that when the Secretary of State crystallises his thoughts he will bear in mind what has been said here today.
	I am disappointed that the Bill does not deal with a number of other issues, which I hope we shall have time to debate during the remainder of its passage. One is the question of flexible speed limits, which are in force on the M25 to improve road safety and traffic flow. I think that they have largely been a success, and that there is an overwhelming case for trialling them on other roads, not necessarily just in a downward direction. I know that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is a little agitated at the thought of 80 mph speed limits on motorways, although that is the speed in France and, where a speed limit operates, in Germany; but I think we should consider trialling flexible speed limits on motorways where, on a clear day with light traffic flows, overhead signs could indicate that motorists were allowed to travel at 80 mph.

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a third time. What does he think would be the average speed of drivers on motorways if the speed limit were increased to 80 mph?

Greg Knight: There is no doubt that during the period of flexibility many motorists would exceed 80 mph, just as many exceed the limit now. It must be accepted that some motorists would drive at 85 or 86 mph.

Tom Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a single country in the world that has raised its national speed limit and experienced a consequent reduction in the number of casualties caused by road accidents?

Greg Knight: I am talking about flexible speed limits, not a permanent increase in the speed limit. I use the word "flexible" in the sense that most people would recognise; it is possible to flex downwards as well as upwards. There are occasions—when it is foggy or there is snow on the ground—on which the speed limit on a motorway should be reduced to below 70 mph. I think that we should trial the system of flexible limits to see where it takes us. I do not believe that it would lead to the consequences envisaged by the hon. Gentleman if it were applied when traffic flows were light and road conditions good.
	I also think that we should consider introducing flexible speed limits in the vicinity of schools. I know that a certain organisation has conducted a letter-writing campaign asking all Members to support blanket speed limits in villages and blanket 20 mph speed limits near schools. I think that it has something of a case, but I do not support the one-size-fits-all suggestion. There a number of villages in my constituency in which I would not want a 30 mph speed limit to be introduced, because the roads passing through them can safely carry traffic at a higher speed.
	However, I think that we should consider using flexibility, particularly with the advent of electronic speed signs and flashing warning signs, which are now available to us but were not a few years ago, and at trialling 20 mph zones outside schools, although not during the school holidays, because an inappropriate speed limit will be disobeyed by motorists. If they feel that the speed limit is not just they will ignore it, but we could try it an hour or so before school commences, or 15 minutes before schoolchildren come out and for an hour after the school day has finished. That is what I would like to see. Let us try flexible and temporary speed limits where appropriate. They will signify to the responsible driver, when he sees the flashing "20" sign, that school children are about to be in the vicinity. I think that most drivers would respond to that positively.

Si�n James: In Wales we have successfully trialled the 20 mph speed outside schools. I am currently campaigning hard on behalf of the community at Manselton primary school in Swansea. There has been a serious accident outside the school, and we must put schoolchildren's safety first. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that is paramount in any circumstances.

Greg Knight: I do agree. I hope that in addition, the hon. Lady will agree with me that to have a 20 mph speed limit in force during the six or eight weeks when a school is on holiday is not the way to proceed. We should focus the speed limit on when children are likely to want to cross the highway. That will send a message to the driver that he is approaching the school at a dangerous time and should slow down.
	Traffic calming is something else that we could address during the passage of the Bill. I would like the Government to announce that it is their policy to phase out speed humps, which are widely discredited. I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) introduced a 10-minute rule Bill on that matter fairly recently. Chicanes, build-outs and electronic warning signs all have their place, but speed humps are a menace and are increasingly seen as such.
	I would like to share with the House a report in The Daily Telegraph on 8 October last year. Under the headline, Bus passenger paralysed by speed bump, the article said:
	A bus passenger has been paralysed after damaging his spine as the vehicle drove over a speed bump.
	Neil Price, 53, an electrical retailer, of Kendal, Cumbria, was travelling on a Stagecoach bus in Dalton-in-Furness. He is now in the Royal Preston Hospital with two broken vertebrae and a damaged spinal cord. Doctors have told him it will be two or three weeks before they know whether he will walk again.
	There is also an article that I managed to pick up off the internet, so I am not sure that the named author is the actual author, but it reinforces the point. Under the headline Speed Humps are a Curse, it reinforces the point:
	Paramedics are warning that speed humps are killing hundreds of people a year by increasing ambulance response times.
	It goes on to quote the chairman of the London Ambulance Service as saying that more lives are lost through delays caused by speed humps and other measures than are saved by them.
	The article goes on:
	Emergency services chiefs have also criticised Councils for introducing speed humps without any apparent consideration of their adverse effects. Two firefighters in America suffered spinal injuries in separate incidents when they hit their heads on the cab roof as their vehicle went over a hump.
	Speed humps are by far the worst form of traffic calming because they damage vehicle suspension systems and are also dangerous for those travelling in an ambulance who may have spinal or other injuries . . . Austrian researchers found that exhaust pollution can soar tenfold as drivers accelerate away from humps.
	The humps can also increase road noise if . . . heavy vehicles are crossing them.
	The article concludes with a comment by an RAC spokesman:
	About six months after the humps are installed, people generally come back and say that it has caused problems with the amount of noise . . . and pollution. A few months after these humps are introduced, most people want to get rid of them.
	Given the advent of new technologies, I hope that Ministers will look into different ways of calming traffic. A number of villages in my constituency have the benefit of flashing electronic signs, some of which are powered by wind; they have a fan on top that recharges the batteries. They are excellent and shock motorists when they flash. Many motorists do not know that they are there, and to judge by what I have observed from the pavement as they approach them, they seem to have the desired deterrent effect without the negative effects of speed humps.
	Planning guidance should also be regarded as relevant to road safety. There are far too many congested roads and vehicles parked on pavements and blocking access points, thereby causing delay and holding up emergency vehicles. During my visit to Leicester, to which I referred earlier, I read in the excellent Leicester Mercury that Blaby district council is going to lay down concrete grass. It is setting aside
	20,000 to expand parking areas . . . by putting down a surface of concrete with holes through which grass can grow.
	The council said the scheme was in response to problems with housing developments built without adequate parking facilities or garage space.
	It is ridiculous in this day and age that planners are allowing developers to build houses without any off-street accommodation for the motor car. People do not need a triple, double or even single garage for their car; all that they need is a piece of land 18 ft x 6 ft and a dropped kerb. That would reduce road congestion and eliminate the danger that pedestrians face as they negotiate parked cars with two wheels on the pavement. Planners ought to be telling developers, Unless you make provision for the motor car, you won't get your planning permission. I hope that the Minister will speak to his colleagues in another Department and see whether they can be sold on this idea, which would make a huge difference.
	My final point about road safety and matters outwith the Bill concerns British summer time. It about time we ended the annual ritual of putting our clocks back every October, mainly to appease a handful of Scots. The evidence in favour of such a change is overwhelming.

Angus MacNeil: rose

Greg Knight: I guess that I asked for that. Okay, I give way.

Angus MacNeil: As one of the handful of Scots to whom the right hon. Gentleman alludes, I in part agree with him. It seems strange at times that the clock is changed six or seven weeks before mid-winter, and back again about 15 weeks after mid-winter. I still want the changing of the clocks, but perhaps the period could be altered.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, and I shall answer his point in a moment.
	The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents estimates that between 500 and 2,500 lives could be saved each year if we remained on British summer time. Our colleagues north of the border now have their own Parliament, but I understand that they have not been given the power to set their own time zone. I would happily vote for Scots to have the ability to set their own time zone, and for us to maintain British summer time 12 months a year in England and Wales, in the interests not only of road safety but of tourism. I represent an area that includes the beautiful town of Bridlington. Lighter evenings encourage tourism and reduce energy costs, because there is a better matching of waking hours and daylight hours. We should introduce such a change.
	As you may have gathered from my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in my view the Bill is not the complete answer to improving road safety, but it is a small step. I hope that the Minister will show us in Committee that he is willing not just to take one small step, but to take on board some of the other suggestions made today, and that he is willing to turn that small step into a journey forwards in the interests of road safety. If he does that, this will indeed be a Bill worthy of its name.

David Kidney: Road safety is a policy area that has benefited immeasurably from cross-party consensus for many years. For decades, Labour and Conservative Governments have adopted the approach of long-term strategy tied to demanding targets for casualty reduction. Over that time, there has been great success in achieving those targets. It is remarkable that we have reduced in absolute terms the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on our roads over two decades in which the amount of traffic on our roads has continued to grow every year. As policy makers, we are entitled to congratulate ourselves on some success, but we need to ponder the amount of death and carnage still seen on our roads. More than 3,000 lives are lost every year, with 10 times that number seriously injured. We are entitled to say that we have had successes and that our policy works, but more remains to be done. That is why we are debating a new Road Safety Bill today.
	We are keen, these days, on making decisions based on evidence. There is evidence that adding some measures to the Bill would save more lives. The first was mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). Changing the clocksour time pieces, not the odometers on our carstwice a year may be a wider issue than can be addressed by a road safety Bill, but the Transport Research Laboratory estimated in 1999 that having lighter evenings would save some 100 lives and prevent 2,000 serious and other injuries a year.

Tom Harris: I rise simply to put it on the record that not every Scot is opposed to the scrapping of Greenwich mean time. My hon. Friend is correct to say that many lives would be saved, and a proportion of those lives would be Scottish. On that basis alone, I am in favour of scrapping it.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire gave different figures, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has recently updated its estimate. It says that 130 lives would be saved and up to 2,500 injuries prevented every year. I appreciate that it is a reserved matter, so this Parliament would make the decision, and that it has wider implications than just road safety. More lives would be saved in the workplace, and it would have massive benefits for the economy, especially in tourism, sport and leisure.

Angus MacNeil: Perhaps we could have a compromise, with the clocks being changed back to Greenwich mean time a month or five weeks either side of midwinter, instead of the present seven weeks before and 15 weeks after?

David Kidney: That is a generous offer, but I suspect that it will not be decided by this Bill. I urge the Government to consider seriously whether we should have that debate and whether we could all agree on a proposal for change. We have heard Scots voices in this debate that suggest that the objections to the change are not uniform.
	I am grateful to Richard Allsop from PACTS for another piece of evidence. Last year, it was estimated that if we reduced the maximum drink drive limit from 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood to just 50 mg, we could save 65 lives a year. That is a modest change for a valuable saving. I hope that Government and Opposition Front Benchers will give serious consideration to that change, unlike in the last Parliament, when we considered a similar Bill. After all, it would put us back in the mainstream of maximum limits, because at the moment we are out on the edge when it comes to comparison with the legal limits in other countries.
	Allied to the drink-driving limit is detection of the people who drive with excess alcohol in their blood. I am a member of PACTS, which I mentioned earlier, and it recommends that we move away from waiting for people to commit an offence before we can test whether they are drunk while driving. We should move towards not random testing, whereby the police can stop anyone they like, whenever they like, for any reason, but to targeted testing, whereby, if the police have intelligence that there is a concentration of people driving with excess alcohol in their blood, the police can conduct tests in the area to try to detect them.
	Those hon. Members who were part of the previous Parliament have largely seen such provisions before. It is pleasing to acknowledge that the Government listened to the debates and arguments during the passage of the previous Road Safety Bill, as far as it got, and that they have made improvements in the Bill. It is a shame that one of those measuresthe sentences that magistrates courts could impose for the proposed new offence of causing death by careless drivingwas watered down in the other place, and I hope that we can review that decision during the Bill's passage, to restore something that is strongly supported by hon. Members and the public generally.

Peter Bottomley: I was not here for the opening of the debate because I was attending a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar. Would it be a good idea to invite the Minister to try to bring together groups, such as RoadPeace and Brake, with Members of the other House to hold a small seminar to find out whether they can get their minds together and agree a way for the courts not to be denied information about cause of death, so that it can be taken into account where it is relevant to the penalty?

David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman and I used to co-chair PACTSI think he still does, but I do notand I thank him for that constructive suggestion. He missed the speech of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Conservative spokesman, who has some hesitation about the new offence. The approach that the hon. Gentleman suggests might have some appeal to his hon. Friend.
	Further piloting of the alcolock is a very good suggestion. It is a way for the law to address the offender's specific problem before the courts. The more we can do that, the better in sentencing offenders in future. However, as well as those measures, I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about the need for more effective road policing. I remind the House that the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers jointly announced a road policing commitment in January last year, and the House needs to monitor the effectiveness of that announcement and ensure that we are getting the effective policing that we were then promised.
	I support more use of rehabilitation courses for drink-driving offenders, so I welcome the simplification of and extra incentives for those rehabilitation courses under clause 34.
	During debates in Committee on the previous Road Safety Bill in the last Parliament, I argued for further extensions of speed awareness and driving improvement courses for other road traffic offenders. Those courses help to address the offender's specific problem and try to put it right for the future, rather than simply sentencing historically for an offence that has been committed previously. Those courses are constructed to look forward to try to ensure that the same behaviour does not occur again.
	I also support the proposal in the Bill for graduated penalty points. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that when he first consulted on that idea more than a year ago the opinion of those who responded was quite closely balanced. More than a year later, the balance has shifted much more towards acceptance of graduated penalty points as part of sentencing procedure. However, the sticking point remains, as the Secretary of State well knows, the concern that many hon. Members haveI am very much one of themthat sending out the message that breaking 20 mph limits and 30 mph limits, even by quite a small amount, is less serious. Breaking the speed limit in precisely that way could have the greatest possible effect on other people.
	After all, as other hon. Members have said already, hit a child pedestrian at 20 mph, or even 30, and the child may survive, but drive at closer to 40 mph, and there will be less chance to take avoiding action and the injuries that occur will be probably fatal to the child. With a penalty of two points each time, it will take six offences, instead of the current four, over three years for drivers to tot up enough points to lose their driving licence. The idea that that message will incentivise them to be careful on roads with those speed limits is misplaced to say the least.
	On the proposed new offence of causing death by careless driving, I recognise the concerns of those, including the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who say that punishment should be commensurate with the guilty act and not with its consequences, but to take a vehicle out on a road is to undertake a responsible activity. As I set out, it is foreseeable that hitting a person with a vehicle will cause injuryperhaps fatal injuryand that should be within the driver's contemplation. The existence of the offence will underline the responsibility that we all assume when we get behind the wheel. Of course, imprisonment for committing the offence is not compulsory or obligatory but will be reserved for those who have clearly failed, by the greatest amount, to shoulder their responsibility.
	On specific aspects of driving that need attention, young drivers are most at risk of causing or being involved in road crashes. The insurance industry knows only too well about that preponderance. Some imaginative schemes exist, such as the offer by some insurance companies to reduce the premiums of those who go on to take pass plus as well as their driving test. Norwich Union has a novel pay-as-you-drive insurance, which encourages people to stay off the most dangerous roads or off the roads at the most dangerous times of the day.
	Coming along behind those measuresthis has a slightly more general applicationare technological solutions, such as intelligent speed adaptation. Imagine when it will not be possible for the driver to exceed the speed limit because of how the vehicle is controlled. That will allow us to throw away all the speed humps and speed cameras, which must surely be attractive to many people and worth giving up the joy of breaking the speed limit. Such technology goes wider than measures that affect just young drivers, but it is important that we are young driver-aware in education, publicity and policing.
	When we debate the Bill in Committee, I hope that we will give more attention to protecting cyclists, as seems likely from previous contributions. We want to promote cycling. It is a healthy activity, both for the cyclists and for the environment of the world that we all occupy. However, cycling on our congested roads is a dangerous activity. Let me give an example from my postbag. When my constituent, Alastair Semple, was knocked off his bike by a car at a roundabout, he found so little sympathy that the police were not even going to prosecute the car driver for careless driving until Alastair collected sufficient evidence, including photographic evidence, to persuade them that a prosecution was merited. We need more cycle lanes, stronger policing and better education for drivers and, I confess, for cyclists too. We need more publicity from the Department like the advert Think bike, which relates to motorcycles and is, I think, successful.
	It has been estimated that around a third of road casualties occur as a consequence of people driving in the course of their work. We need to create a stronger focus, through the Bill, on employer responsibility for training and education, and, frankly, for not putting their workers under impossible time pressures. There are excellent examples of good employer practice, and we need to ensure that more employers, especially those in small and medium-sized enterprises, get the message and behave equally responsibly. The Bill goes with the grain of the national strategy for reducing casualties, and for that reason it should be supported. It has been improved as a result of consideration in the last Parliament, but it remains capable of further improvement in this one. I hope that in Committee we will have an opportunity to debate some possible improvements that can be made.

Lee Scott: I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who raised the issue of pedicabs, which are unchecked and unregulated, and cause major problems on our roads. There is no recourse for anyone involved in an accident with them, and that issue should be tackled as a matter of urgency. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) spoke about first aid training for drivers. I appreciate that refresher courses would be required, but if someone has learned something there are some aspects that they will never forget. If that training saves one life, it is worth while, but I recommend that we go a stage further. Some of our European neighbours and many other countries make it compulsory to carry first aid kits in all vehicles, which benefits everyone if a vehicle is involved in an accident or, indeed, if the driver and passengers witness an accident. I urge the Government to consider making it a legal requirement to carry first-aid boxes in cars.
	Speed cameras have been mentioned. I fully support them where they make our roads safe. However, there is a speed camera in my constituency at the bottom of the M11 exit to the Redbridge roundabout, where accidents have gone up by 300 per cent. since it was installed. Either it is the wrong place and needs to be moved, or one must assume that it is there for other reasons. Speed cameras should be there to make our roads safer, and for no other reason. Hon. Members have spoken about the blight of mini-motorcycles, which is a huge problem. In my constituency and, I am sure, in others, one sees very young children with no head gear or training driving unlicensed vehicles on the road. We have read in the press about many accidents and, indeed, fatalities. That must be stopped. It is not simply a matter of asking our police force or, indeed, local authorities, to enforce a bannew legislation is required to bring mini-motorcycles into line with other road vehicles.
	I am in favour of a 20 mph speed limit near our schools. I praise the London borough of Redbridge for its work in imposing those limits around schools in my constituency, particularly primary schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said that there are certain times of year when a limit is not necessary, but I disagree, as they are needed throughout the year, including school holidays, in residential areas where children play. The 20 mph limit has saved many lives over the years, and it will continue to do so. As we have heard, the question of whether a child is hit at 20 mph or 30 mph can make the difference between serious injury and a life and death situation.

Peter Bone: Is my hon. Friend aware that in America 15 mph limits are flashed up at the beginning and end of the school day? Is there not a danger that a permanent 20 mph limit will be ignored?

Lee Scott: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I am afraid that I disagree. The permanent enforcement of lower speed limits is required. Cars are usually parked in the streetas we heard, planning regulations mean that homes do not have off-road car parking spacescreating narrow spaces where children run in and out. Children will be children, and if we can do something to prevent fatalities, we are duty bound to take such action.
	The flashing speed signs just mentioned by my hon. Friend offer a valid way to reduce traffic speed in such areas and they should be used. However, I am not as opposed as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is to the use of speed humps. They are not needed in some places and should be removed, but they add to traffic calming in residential areas. We need to look at all methods of traffic calming, and we should not lose the contribution that speed humps make.
	We have heard today about some tragic cases involving fatalities caused by drink-driving or by people using drugs or mobile phones while driving. Drivers who hit and run must be punished most severely, and such matters will be teased out further in Committee, but how do families feel when one of their members is killed by someone who has been caught driving while drunk? When such a person is given a light sentence by the court, we have to ask whether he or she is paying the price for the crime that has been committed.
	If no crime has been committed in such an incident, it is clear that the court must be able to respond accordingly, and I am sure that that is another matter for consideration in Committee. We need to look at the penalties that the court can apply, but it must have the power to send an offender to prison in some cases.
	We have also heard about cars from eastern Europe. In my constituency, I see many people driving around in cars that are not roadworthy. Often, they are uninsured, and it is frequently alleged that the people behind the wheel are not qualified to drive. I hope that the Bill will tackle that problem. How can such people be prosecuted if they commit an offence that leads to a tragic accident?
	I support and welcome much of the Bill. As other Opposition Members have noted, some elements need teasing out in Committee, but any measure that can save a life or prevent the tragic suffering of families who have lost a loved one must be welcomed, and I do so.

Tom Harris: It is a delight to be able to take part in a debate that, so far, has been almost worryingly saturated in consensus. However, I shall try to continue in the same spirit.
	I begin by congratulating and paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) for her contribution today and for the immense work that she has done in previous years as part of the campaign to introduce the new offence of causing death by careless driving, which is included in the Bill. I expressed my reservations about that earlier in the debate, and I look forward to thrashing the matter out at length in Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend is a member of that Committee, as the power that she leant to her arguments will serve her well there.
	I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). His contribution to the debate was one of the most powerful and moving speeches that I have heard during my time in the House.
	Keeping with the spirit of consensus, I welcome this very important Bill. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my own council, Glasgow city council, and in particular to Robert Booth, the director of land services. He has spearheaded the statutory speed limit of 20 mph around every primary school in the city. That system is an innovative departure and, in line with the suggestion from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), allows the flashing speed limit signs to be switched off during the schools' summer recesses. I welcome that and think that it is an effective use of the new power. I know that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) does not believe that the 20 mph limit should be switched off during school holidays, but I am sure that we can discuss that in Committee.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire referred at length to his dissatisfaction with traffic humpsso-called sleeping policemenand I agree with much of what he said. In a previous existenceas well as while being a Member of this HouseI found that residents often felt that sleeping policemen were a panacea. They think that if there is speeding in their neighbourhood, they should get some traffic humps. If someone is tragically killed in an accident, the answer is always traffic humps, but it is not always the right answer. The emergency services have grave reservations about sleeping policemen. I might not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman in saying that they should not be used at all, but I think that people have unrealistically high expectations of the effects that sleeping policemen will have on their neighbourhoods.

Paul Rowen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one effect of speed humps is an increase in injury for certain people? In my constituency, the local bus company has sought to withdraw bus routes because humps have been put in to an extent that is unacceptable for people who are driving along those routes. Does he agree that we need to investigate alternative solutions?

Tom Harris: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, although I would be more cautious. I would suggest that, if someone suffers an injury from driving over a road hump or if the vehicle itself is damaged, the driver might be going a bit too fast. About a year ago, a friend of mine in my constituencyan elderly gentlemancomplained about a series of road humps in Ardencraig road in Castlemilk. He told me that they were a waste of time. I said, Why's that? He said, When my daughter's driving me to my house in the afternoon we have to slow down and it takes ages. So, perhaps road humps are more effective than the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire suggests. Of course, individual situations require individual solutions.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman is speaking a great deal of sense about road humps. I agree that the people who complain that their cars are damaged are obviously going far too fast. One of the problems that I have come across in my constituency is the displacement of traffic on to roads that do not have road humps. I can think of an example involving four roads that are all parallel. Two of them have traffic calming involving road humps and the other two do not, and all the traffic has been displaced to the two that do not. The issue of traffic engineering is complex and must be thought through very carefully.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is where the role of local authorities is crucial. There is no point in considering a single road and deciding on a solution. A strategy has to be considered so that if traffic calming is implemented on one or two local roads, the knock-on effects on nearby roads are taken into account. In my experience, Strathclyde regional council, where I used to work, had a good record of doing exactly thatas does Glasgow city council.

Alison Seabeck: There is clearly not a standardised road hump anywhere in the country. Plymouth city council has just had to get the contactor that put in speed humps incorrectly along a whole road to remove them. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are going to have road humps, they should be standardised? They are often different heights.

Tom Harris: I may have given the impression earlier that I am some kind of expert on road humps and, if that is the case, I apologise for misleading the House. There may well be a case for standardising sizes and lengths of road humps and my hon. Friend may well have an excellent case, but I am not qualified to offer her an opinion on that.
	There is another point that I want to mention, and I appreciate the range that you have allowed to Members taking part in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because these are important issues, although they are not specifically mentioned in the Bill. A new practice that has unfortunately become more widespread in the past 15 or 20 years, although it was not heard of many years ago, is residents parking their cars on pavements. When I worked as a press officer for Strathclyde regional council many years ago, it was interesting that many of the residents who demanded road humps for their area were exactly the same people who parked their cars on pavements that were supposed to be used by pedestrians. Road engineers had, and have, a sensible response to the practice. If people park their cars on the roadwhere they belongand thus reduce the width of a residential road, through traffic must slow down so that it can navigate the road safely. It makes absolutely no sense to widen a road by parking on the area intended for pedestrians and at the same time to ask for road humps.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely correct to say that the UK has a good road safety record, although he was also right to say that it is not good enough and that we must improve it. I sometimes fear that society in this country sees more than 3,000 deaths a year as an acceptable level of violence, although I know that my right hon. Friend would not subscribe to that sentiment, far less give voice to it, which is just as well given that when Reginald Maudling, a previous Conservative Home Secretary, used the phrase in the House, he was promptly attacked by Miss Bernadette DevlinI do not propose such a course of action today.
	There is no other aspect of public life in this country in which more than 3,000 deaths a year would be remotely acceptable or tolerated. If that number of deaths occurred on the railways or British domestic airlines, the situation would not be allowed to continue. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) talked about the number of people who are devoted to examining safety on the railways and airlines. We, as a society, have come to accept the number of deaths, but that should be at the root of our attempts to address the problem.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman expresses support for a proposal that I advocated earlier. Would he be willing to put his name to an amendment that would introduce a road accident investigation board that could examine the pattern of road accidents and try to find solutions, as is the case for aviation and rail?

Tom Harris: I will resist that temptation because such a body would simply be another quango and would create more bureaucracyI am not instinctively in favour of such developments. Additionally, given the number of accidents that take place, such an investigation unit would repeat its investigations each time that one occurred. On balance, such a publicly funded and unelected quango would not achieve a great deal, but I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's arguments in Committee.
	When the Bill becomes an Act, its success will depend on the greater acceptance and use of speed cameras. I declare an interest at this point because I have six penalty points on my licence. I was clocked on the M6 in December 2003I will not tell hon. Members the speedand five months earlier, I was caught by a speed camera on the A9. Even though the offences were five months apart, I found out about both endorsements in December 2003 and thus went from having a completely clean licence to having a licence with six points on it in two weeks. I reveal this partly in case someone else reveals it first and, secondly, because it has made me think carefully whenever I drive. I need my car to do my job.
	After such a fright from getting six penalty points on my licence in such a period of time, I have driven more carefully since the end of 2003 than at any other time in my life, and I have speed cameras to thank for that. I did not enjoy being caught, but it is an inevitable argument that even where speed cameras do not save livesfor example, the stretch of motorway where I was caught is not a particular accident blackspotgetting caught has led directly to a change in my behaviour. That outcome should be welcomed as a direct result of the proliferation of speed cameras in this country.
	There is a huge amount of media outrage, and it was suggested earlier that some Opposition Members are not as enthusiastic about the proliferation of speed cameras as some Labour Members. We see evidence of the Daily Mail Big Brother agenda every time new speed cameras go up. The George Orwell analogy is so over-used that I wonder whether any of the sub-editors have read 1984. I do not remember Winston Smith being clocked for doing 80 mph on the M6. 1984 was about slightly more important freedoms than the freedom to break the law and endanger other people's lives.
	I am not in favour of restrictions on individual freedoms. For example, I did not vote to support the 100 per cent. ban on smoking in public places, but there is no such thing as the right to break the law. That should not be tolerated by the House. If speed cameras can contribute to a change in the culture whereby speeding becomes unacceptable, in the same way as drink-driving has become unacceptable, speed cameras will be seen historically to have made a major contribution to the safety of our culture. It is often said by the anti-speed camera lobby that speed cameras turn ordinary law-abiding citizens into criminals. They do not. Law-abiding citizens turn themselves into criminals by choosing to break the law by speeding. That is an unpleasant message to give, but it is fact.
	I want to challenge my hon. Friend the Minister on part of clause 18, which outlaws speed assessment equipment detection devices. I know exactly the kind of devices to which that refers, but could there not be a wider interpretation of the word device? Last year the AA published its new road map of Britain, which included the precise location of every stationary speed camera in the country. Whatever the protestations of the AA, the only reason for publishing the exact location of every speed camera in the country was in order to warn its members, the purchasers of that map, when they may get caught speeding. In other words, it was a device enabling people to break the speed limit on long stretches of road, and then to slow down when they were approaching a speed camera, in order to avoid prosecution. I hope that the clause will outlaw such a measure.

Stephen Hammond: One could take the alternative viewthat the measure was telling people how to conform to the law.

Tom Harris: I could take that view, although I will not. That is exactly the argument that the AA used when it was justifiably criticised for producing such a reprehensible publication.

Stephen Ladyman: Before my hon. Friend digs too deep a hole for me to climb out of, although the AA received a great deal of publicity for having produced that document, it was based on a document produced by the Government. We publish the sites of all speed cameras, as does every camera partnership. The reason we do that is in line with the argument suggested by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)we want people to know where the blackspots are, where the cameras have been located, so that they can address their offending behaviour and drive safely at those sites.

Tom Harris: That brings me to another point. I do not think that most drivers would respond in such a way. Personally, I do not believe that speed cameras should be visible from the road. Having speed cameras aimed at catching lawbreakers but painting them black and yellowthere are lines on the road, but they have to be thereto warn people that they are about to be monitored is completely self-defeating.
	The hon. Member for Ilford, North mentioned a problem in his constituency on the approach to a roundabout from a slip-road off the M11, where accidents had increased by 300 per cent. since a speed camera was installed. I do not know anything about the particular circumstances, but I wonder whether the reason for the increase is that the visibility of the camera forces drivers to slow down too quickly, perhaps causing cars to bump together. There is a simple answer: do not make the cameras visible. If somebody is driving within the speed limit at all times, they have no need to know where any of the cameras are. The idea that either the Government or the AA are making the locations of cameras known in order to safeguard people pushes the limits of credibility. The AA performed a service for particular drivers, as it knew that drivers needed to know the location of cameras in order to hit 80 and 90 mph between them.
	Another device that is used to beat speed cameras is special reflective number plates. There was an advert in Glasgow a few years agoit has now been removed next to the Clydeside expressway promoting reflective number plates that it said were guaranteed to beat speed cameras. Of course, there may be some loophole that allows such number plates to be sold legally. I hope not, and I hope that the police would investigate any such advert. Will the Minister clarify whether such a device would be counted as one aimed at beating the speed camera?

Stephen Ladyman: I shall give my hon. Friend the clarification that he seeks now. The Bill is intended to make legal devices that simply tell people where the cameras to which he refers are. In addition, however, a covert activity of speed detection is carried out by the police using radars. What the Bill makes illegal is devices allowing people to tell where such covert activity is taking place.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
	Finally, I come to mobile phone offences and clause 26. Although once again the civil libertarians might say that the current law, which prevents drivers from using a mobile phoneat the moment, there is only a fixed penaltyand clause 26 are some sort of infringement of civil liberties, I have found among my own voters that that is not what concerns people. People are concerned that the law is already flagrantly flaunted and rarely enforced. Outside this Palace earlier this week, I watched a van driver turn off Westminster bridge and left into Millbank, stopping at the traffic lights in front of police officers and speaking on his mobile phone as he went.
	Of course, I welcome the measures in the clause, and I believe that people who use their phone irresponsibly while driving should have their licences endorsed. If that ultimately means disqualification, so be it, as that is their choice. However, the clause will only be as effective as the current law unless police officers do some serious enforcement. That is the only thing that will prevent people from using their mobile phones while they are driving. While it is obvious that people who use their mobile phones while driving are not being prosecuted or challenged, there is very little inducement for law-abiding motorists to fork out the money to have a hands-free kit installed in their car. That is what the Government should be encouraging people to do, and it will happen only once people who refuse to do it are held to account.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate and hope that I have remained largely consensual, because I welcome the vast majority of the Bill. The Whip is present in the Chamber, and I am sure that he has noted my willingness to serve in Standing CommitteeI will be massively disappointed if my plea goes unheard.

Andrew Selous: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) has said, the debate has been consensual, and party politics should not divide us in this policy area.
	I will focus on one specific area in the hope that the Minister will see fit to table amendments to deal with a serious road safety problem brought to my attention by Bedfordshire police. At the moment, many drivers routinely commit large numbers of moving road traffic offences that principally involve speeding, but that also include dangerous driving such as jumping red lights. They get away with it because their vehicle details are incorrectly registered.
	That matter involves blatant discrimination. Law-abiding members of the public who correctly register their vehicles rightly pay the penalty of the law when speed cameras or police officers catch them, while people who incorrectly register their vehicles get away with driving extremely dangerously. In my constituency, for example, the A505, which runs from south of Leighton Buzzard to north of Dunstable has a 50 mph speed limit, but drivers have recently been recorded driving at speeds of up to 119 mph on that road. One driver did 82 mph in a built-up area in Dunstable, where there is a 30 mph speed limit, while another jumped a red light six seconds after the light had turned red. I can also show the Minister ample photographic evidence of drivers making rude gestures to speed cameras because they know that they cannot be touched as the law currently stands.
	Since I raised the matter in an Adjournment debate on 8 December, five people have been involved in fatal accidents and three people have been seriously injured in incidents in Bedfordshire involving cars with incorrectly registered details. The tragedy is that some cars have been caught doing outrageous speeds on many occasionsone vehicle has been clocked by speed cameras on 73 occasions and a motor bike has been caught 61 times. It is obvious that death and serious injury could be prevented if the police were able to act on the ample evidence provided by speed cameras.
	To give the Minister an idea of the scale of the problem, Bedfordshire police recorded 1,000 offences in December this year on which no action could be taken because it was impossible to trace the vehicles concerned. Those offences resulted in more than 30,000 of outstanding fines, many of which have lapsed under the six-month rule. The public expenditure implications are important, and I am sure that the Minister wants all fines to be collected.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned PACTS. After my Adjournment debate on 8 December, the director of PACTS, Robert Gifford, pointed out in a letter that
	You are quite correct that this is a significant issue both for police resources and for road safety. As the Road Safety Bill will be returning to the House of Commons in the New Year, there may be an opportunity to raise these issues at Committee stage.
	I am happy to show the Minister that letter.
	I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from a letter written by the chief constable of Bedfordshire police, Gillian Parker. I want to place on the record my admiration for her in pursuing this issue. I am grateful to her and to her officers for all the work that they have put into trying to bring it to the Government's attention. Mrs. Parker writes as follows:
	Most vehicles involved in these offences are registered with false details, or to a false or non-existent address. This makes the process of identifying the registered keeper and the driver virtually impossible.
	Even when these vehicles are stopped as a result of PNC markers placed upon them, the driver is able to provide identification and gives a plausible account as to who the registered keeper is. The evidence is usually insufficient to enable positive action to be taken and we are left no further forward in identifying the true offender in relation to the offences outstanding.
	She continues:
	Advice has been sought from CPS and our local judiciary, there is agreement that to apply the Section 3 test to speeding offences, that is to suggest speeding per se also represents careless and inconsiderate driving, would be inappropriate and unlikely to succeed in court. As a result we are powerless to seize these vehicles under this legislation.
	When our offenders are stopped they usually hold driving licences and insurance, albeit registered to false addresses. Therefore, we cannot use the powers under The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
	When I spoke in the House on this subject on 8 December, I quoted similar stories from the police forces of Cambridgeshire, Essex, Greater Manchester interestingly, the local police force of the Minister who respondedSuffolk and Thames Valley. Today, I can tell the House that I have additional information from thepolice forces of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire, Wiltshire and Warwickshire, which are facing the same problem. That is 12 police forces in total. That does not mean that the other 31 police forces are happy with the current law, but merely that we have not yet managed to get responses from them.
	Let me quote the comments of some of those other police forces in case the Minister or any other Member thinks that the problem is peculiar to Bedfordshire police, which it certainly is not. Nottinghamshire police says:
	I agree with the Bedfordshire legal advisors and other Forces that this legislation
	that is, section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002
	is not appropriate to deal with this type of offence and offender. S.59 relates specifically to vehicles being used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. Therefore, if we cannot show the alarm etc, we have lost the powers. Unlawful use does not necessarily involve problems caused directly to members of the public. This legislation was introduced to combat the problems caused by the 'boy racers', around towns and cities in particular. I am surprised that the Home Office even suggested this.
	Humberside police says:
	I agree that the Police Reform Act Powers are insufficient in this respect. While all powers have to be proportionate, the ease with which the non-compliant can continue to evade justice is alarming and unfair for the rest of us.
	Derbyshire police says:
	Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 is not appropriate as it relates to confiscating vehicles which are causing alarm, distress or annoyance.
	Lastly, Wiltshire police says:
	If we rigorously made every possible attempt to trace some of these registered keepers and nominated drivers I agree with your comments that we would be left with a paper trail with no realistic prospect of tracing/convicting the offender on many occasions.
	I apologise for quoting at length from different police forces but I hope that the quotes show the scale of the problem. Although hon. Members could be forgiven for believing that Bedfordshire police might not be fully competentthey areI hope that the fact that 12 police forces have gone on record to say that the law is inadequate to tackle the problem will convince the Minister that we need to sit down together to examine the issue more seriously.
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), tried to convince me during my Adjournment debate on 8 December that section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 gave the police adequate powers. I asked the chief constable of Bedfordshire to raise that with the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers' road policing business area. I am sorry to say that all that has happened is that the relevant chief constable raised the matter with the Home Office, which gave the same advice as the Under-Secretary was given when he replied to the Adjournment debate on 8 December.
	The Under-Secretary also said that powers under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 could be used to deal with the problem. As I have already said when referring to the comments of the chief constable of Bedfordshire, the powers in the Bill to seize vehicles apply only if valid driving licences and insurance cannot be produced. In most of the Bedfordshire cases, that does not apply and drivers have been able to produce valid documents. That means that highly dangerous offences continue to be committed time and again, and the police can do nothing about it.
	I have raised the matter with Conservative Front Benchers and we are prepared to table amendments to deal with the problem. It would be regrettable if we had to do that. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it would show the House of Commons at its worst if we divided on party political lines about the matter. Party politics should not come into it. It should be a case of sitting down together and ascertaining why the current law is unsatisfactory.
	In my Adjournment debate on 8 December, we had the absurd and almost comical position whereby the Under-Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box to tell me that the powers were adequate while, above him in the Public Gallery, two serving officers from Bedfordshire police shook their heads as he spoke. It is incumbent on us all to listen to serving police officers who deal with the matter day in, day out and desperately want it to be resolved.
	Problems also exist with the requirements that we make of people when they register their vehicles. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the address of 25 Duke street in Chelmsford. There is no particular reason why he should be. However, it is well known not only to Essex police but to Bedfordshire police and, indeed, to many police forces in the eastern region because it is purely a drop-off postal address, at which many vehicles are registered. It is an address of convenience. When the police turn up there, they have no hope of apprehending the relevant driver. There are therefore problems with the registration of vehicles.
	I had the opportunity to speak to the Minister briefly before the debate and I shall listen carefully to his winding-up remarks. I genuinely believe that there is a misunderstanding on the part of some civil servants in the Home Office. I appreciate that Ministers must take advice and listen to their civil servants, but I hope that I have given enough evidence to show that the police need extra powers to seize vehicles, the owners of which have committed multiple offences of driving at outrageously dangerous speeds, and to tackle the problem. I greatly look forward to the Minister's response.

Linda Riordan: May I urge the Minister to seize the opportunity provided by the Road Safety Bill to address the problems of unidentified and untreated sleep disorders among drivers, as a means of improving road safety? The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned this issue earlier. The Bill, and the Department for Transport's Tiredness kills campaign, include welcome measuresthe Secretary of State mentioned picnic areasto address the problem of sleepiness in tired but otherwise healthy drivers.
	However, those measures fail to educate or regulate the estimated 4 per cent. of the middle-aged population who suffer from the sleep disorder known as sleep apnoea, and who might be unaware that they have a medical condition, as such conditions are not checked for under the present licensing system. Sufferers of obstructive sleep apnoea have been shown to have a worse driving performance than healthy drivers who are over the alcohol limit.
	A case study from the Sleep Apnoea Trust illustrates the problem. It states:
	For many years prior to my car accident there were periods during the day when I felt utterly exhausted. Unknown to me I was experiencing poor quality sleep every night and to an extent it was affecting my whole life. My ability to concentrate was poor. In August 1997 we had been out walking in the morning, had a light lunch (no alcohol), a further walk in the afternoon, and I was driving home when I apparently dozed off and next thing was that we hit a tree at about 60 mph. Fortunately, neither I nor my wife was seriously injured, although I was taken by ambulance to hospital with an aggravated spinal complaint.
	The car following me up the hill was being driven by an off duty traffic policeman on holiday. Being first on the scene he checked for alcohol then asked several questions from which I subsequently realised (after diagnosis with sleep apnoea) that he was obviously familiar with the condition. Previous visits to my GP had not revealed anything untoward, it was put down to long and irregular hours (I suspect more than likely the general lack of understanding of the Sleep Apnoea condition).
	The prevalence of sleep disorders is significant and growing. As obesity is a contributory factor to OSA, the incidence of the disorder is likely to increase. The largest British survey to date of drivers of heavy goods vehicles studied 900 drivers over two years and found that one in six had severe OSA. It also found that one in three HGV drivers had moderate OSA. Awareness of sleep disorders among members of the public, drivers and employers of professional drivers is unacceptably low.

Julie Morgan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work as chair of the all-party group on sleep disorders. This is an important issue. Does she agree that many drivers would hesitate to report the fact that they suffered from drowsiness because they would be afraid of losing their licence? They are probably not aware that this is a curable disease. Should not the Department for Transport and the Department of Health work together to publicise these issues?

Linda Riordan: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am obliged to say to the hon. Lady that she really needs to direct her remarks to what might, in her view, be in the Bill that we are discussing. We cannot have a general discussion about sleep disorders. That would be more appropriate for another occasion, perhaps even an Adjournment debate. She must somehow relate what she is saying to the Bill, and not just by vaguely alluding to the fact that sleep disorders may cause road accidents. She must propose what might be done in the Bill to address the issue.

Linda Riordan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I do beg your pardon. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will cover the point that she raised later in my speech, as well as outlining what I would like to see in the Bill.
	As I was saying, awareness of sleep disorders among members of the public, drivers and employers of professional drivers is unacceptably low, given the associated risks. Indeed, the Department is well aware of that. In 2004, an expert workshop convened by the Department for Transport on driving and medical aspects of excessive daytime sleepiness concluded:
	The key issue was how to address the undiagnosed, but potentially high-risk, driver with a sleep disorder . . . The major focus should be on identifying and treating unrecognised patients rather than just addressing the issue of driving in those already known to have OSA.
	I am concerned that from the answers to parliamentary questions that I tabled in the autumn, it would appear that the DFT has not undertaken research into the medical status of individuals involved in sleep-related traffic accidents, nor kept a record of the number of accidents where a sleep disorder was a contributory factor. That suggests a fundamental gap.

Tom Brake: I hope it will be a helpful intervention if I suggest that sleep disorders are the sort of thing that the road accidents investigation board, which could form part of the Bill, could investigate.

Linda Riordan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and agree with him.
	Additionally, the licensing system needs to be more robust. Research undertaken by the Institute of Advanced Motorists and published in February 2006 found low awareness of the effects of medical conditions upon driving among occupational drivers and their employers. In a survey of 1,000 drivers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, seven out of 10 said that their employers neither offer nor require medical check-ups. It is also worth noting that although the symptoms of sleep disorders can be managed cheaply and effectively, enabling most drivers to return safely to driving, there is a failure to provide those medical services, which results in a disincentive to report to the DVLA.

Mark Hunter: The hon. Lady has raised a number of important points, but the key is surely that the Bill does nothing to address concerns about driver sleepiness as a result of the sleep disorders to which she has referred. Would the hon. Lady agree that a major disadvantage of the Bill is that it does not envisage strengthening the process of awarding licences or reviewing medical fitness to drive? Would she also agree that those issues need to be considered by the Department for Transport and that a regular review of medical fitness is required to deal with the problem?

Linda Riordan: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) have nobly tried to help the hon. Lady bridge the gap between the notes that she has prepared and the content of the Bill. I must urge her to take the escape route that is being offered to her in order to come to the point directly.

Linda Riordan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am asking the Minister to work more with other Departments to bridge the gaps so that drivers can feel safe to have medical checks and continue to drive.
	It must be communicated to drivers who experience persistent sleepiness that in addition to the short-term measures outlined in the Bill, such as stopping at a safe rest area or drinking a high caffeine drink such as coffee, they may need to seek medical help to establish whether their sleepiness derives from a sleep disorder.
	Secondly, the Department should take steps to inform drivers about sleep disorders and their responsibility to report any concerns they may have over their medical fitness to drive. The processes of awarding a driving licence and reviewing fitness to drive should be strengthened to increase the likelihood of sleep disorders being identified in drivers. Lastly, the DFT should collaborate with the Department of Health to ensure the speedy diagnosis and treatment of drivers with sleep disorders to help to remove the existing disincentive to report symptoms or to seek medical health.

Mark Harper: When the Secretary of State opened the debate he pointed out that the national road safety figures were improving, which is welcomebut, unfortunately, in my constituency they are doing anything but that. Last year there were 20 road fatalitiesabout four times the national averageand this year, sadly, there have already been four deaths. It is only March, yet we are already approaching the national yearly average, so it would be gratifying if the number did not increase at all this year.
	There is a mixture of reasons for those accidents. The coroner has not yet reported on many cases so we cannot talk about them, but in one accident involving young drivers the report has been made and the cause was drink-related excessive speed. My constituents were affected particularly by the prevalence of multiple fatalities, especially of younger drivers, and I shall discuss some of the remedies to prevent such accidents.
	One good thing that came out of those tragedies was the good response of the local community. Mike Webb and Jimmy Martin, driving instructors and members of the Forest and Wye Valley Driving Instructors Association, have put together, in their own time, an excellent presentation, which they have been taking to schools in the area, to get through to youngsters the importance of safe and careful driving, to try to save lives. They have been working with the fire and rescue service, the police and the county council's road safety team.
	I am pleased that the county council has targeted highway improvements in its budget plans for future years, to ensure that our roads are safer. Local authorities will be bidding for road safety grants from the Department for Transport and it is worth noting that there are some straightforward physical changes that can be made, especially in rural areasfor example, the proper installation of road drainage. In Gloucestershire county council's new contract, drainage will be a key performance indicator. It is important to make sure that there is no surface water on roads, as it appears to have been a factor in at least one of the casualties last year.
	The Secretary of State mentioned the number of accidents that do not involve another vehicle. In my rural constituency, a number of fatalities occur when people lose control of their vehicle and hit a sizeable roadside tree. The county council is looking into the idea of cutting back trees, which will have several benefits. It will improve visibility, reduce ice coverbecause the road will not be in shadeallow boundary features and road signs to be more visible, and provide more space for horse riders to get off the road if necessary. Neither measureproper road cleaning or control of vegetationwould cost much. When we consider the financial costs of a road fatality, quite apart from anything else, such investment is sensible.
	The Bill includes proposals for road safety grants, for which local authorities will bid and which the Department will award based on the road casualty figures and the quality of the local authority's casualty reduction plan. I welcome the proposal for the grants. My only plea to the Minister is that the application and assessment process should not be painful for local authorities, or require huge amounts of bureaucracy. Furthermore, given the variety of road safety performance and geographical area, as well as the nature of the road network, there should be significant local flexibility when assessing casualty reduction plans. After all, local people have a much better idea of what needs to be done to improve road safety in their area.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) touched on the statistics about young drivers, noting that young men account for only about 4 per cent. of the driving population, but for more than 30 per cent. of dangerous driving convictions. It is clear from the various meetings that we had following road accidents in my constituency, with young drivers in particular, that we need to do more than provide education and training in the theory and practice of driving. We should bear in mind the attitudes that young males bring to driving. For one thing, they think that they are invincible; unfortunately, when they discover that they are not it is often too late, and they, or others, pay the price. There are also societal factors. Young men are influenced by, for instance, magazines that emphasise the attractiveness of speed. We need to combat such influences.
	I am trying to persuade the emergency and education services in Gloucestershire to adopt a scheme that has been successful in Surrey, called Safe Drive Stay Alive. It was the idea of a Surrey firefighter, Rob Green, who was the victim of an accident caused by a speeding uninsured young driver. The Bill may help to prevent such accidents. The driver hit Rob Green and his wife when they were travelling on a motor cycle. Sadly, Mrs. Green was killed, and her husband lost both legs and suffered severe burns. When he returned to work, he developed the idea of a touring performance for young people approaching, and reaching, the legal driving age of 17. The first event was staged in Dorking. Groups of sixth-formers were bussed to a venue several times a day to see a production involving a filmed reconstruction of a genuine road accident in which a young person had been killed and others severely injured. The film used all the emergency services, and was shockingly realistic. I viewed it on a DVD with which I was supplied.
	Following the screening, the audience was addressed by the emergency service personnel who had been involved in the original accident: the firefighter who cut the passengers free, the paramedic who was first on the scene, the doctor who pronounced the young person dead, the policeman who had to visit her parents, and the victim of another road accident who had ended up confined to a wheelchair. Apparently, the effect on the audience was profound. Subsequent research confirmed that the event had changed the young people's attitudes to driving, and made a noticeable difference to the way in which they conducted themselves.
	As I have said, I am encouraging the relevant authorities in Gloucestershire to adopt that idea. I should like the Minister to think about it as well. If such programmes are bid for as part of the road safety grant arrangements, he may consider it appropriate to fund them.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should target certain age groups with certain messages. The increasing prevalence of accidents among born-again bikers is often overlooked. They acquire very fast machines in middle age, and late middle age. A road in my constituency, between Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Rempstone, is a death trap. The number of accidents there is significant. Should we not target groups of that kind as well?

Mark Harper: My point was not exclusive, but the statistics show a notable prevalence of casualties and convictions for dangerous driving among younger people. In my constituency last year, a significant number of such drivers were young. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however. All drivers need to think about the way in which they conduct themselves on the road. At many of our meetings following road accidents, many older and more experienced drivers were frank about the fact that they too might not have the right attitude to driving. They may have as much to learn as some younger drivers. Nevertheless, there is unmistakable evidence that young people account for a significant percentage of road accidents.
	The pass plus course is one of the training opportunities for drivers, particularly new drivers. I have tabled some questions on that matter to the Minister, and raised it at oral questions. One of the things that I am thinking about is how to arrange things so that young drivers, in particular, see the benefit of undertaking such training. One of the blocks is that pass plus carries a financial cost. Sometimes, if a younger driver has just paid for driving lessons and is having to fund a car, taking other training is quite expensive. There is one obvious method to make that more affordableproviding young people with significant discounts on car insurance, which is a significant cost, as a result of having done pass plus or other training.
	Many insurance companies offer discounts for pass plus, some of which can be quite significantbut that is not always the case. I have spoken to a number of young people in my constituency who have taken pass plus or other training courses. For example, Sarah Rudge, a 19-year-old from Mile End, and Jonathan Jones, an 18-year-old from Pope's Hill, recently took a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents course. I presented them with their certificates in my constituency office. I talked to them about what happened. They struggled to get improved insurance quotes, even though they had taken some training and demonstrated that they were careful drivers and approached driving with the right attitude.
	If it is not possible for the Government to fund pass plus for younger drivers, perhaps they can have talks with the insurance industry to look at the evidence from drivers who have taken extra training to see whether it has had a significant effect on the safety of their driving. If it has, perhaps they could try to get the insurance industry to assess the risk properly when they offer quotes. That seems a good way to encourage increased take-up.
	The insurance companies have an incentive to encourage safer driving, particularly with younger drivers. If people have accidents in which they are seriously injured, which stops them from being able to work and means that they need significant support throughout their life, it can be incredibly expensive. I have been given one example of a 22-year-old driver who attempted to overtake at high speed and had a serious accident. Considering the medical costs, the damages for injury, the modifications to his housing, the fact that he was not going to be able to work for the rest of his life, and the fact that his previous job had been modestly paid, the insurance company was looking at a total claim of 3 million. That may be exceptional, but in view of some of those factors, it is easy to see that the financial arrangements could be made to work in the right direction and encourage young people to become better trained and better qualified, and to approach driving with the right attitude. I urge the Minister to do that in conjunction with the insurance industry.
	I did not intend to say anything about the proposal to tighten the penalties for causing death by careless driving, but one remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was worth elaborating onhis remark about what happens to drivers if they swerve to avoid an animal and cause a road accident and a death. In certain parts of my constituency, we have a significant deer population. The main roads through the forest are not fenced. A person can be driving perfectly safely and reduce their speed because they know deer are aboutbut deer, unlike some other animals, can give no warning. They can come out straight in front of the driver. They are of a significant size. The driver reacts. There is no time to thinkit has happened to me; fortunately, there were no other vehicles in the vicinity. The driver swerves to avoid the animal and crosses to the other side of the road. At a different time, they could have caused a serious road accident, although there would have been no intention to do so. The person would not have been driving dangerously. I would not want people in that situation to be criminalised and put in prison.

Stephen Ladyman: I should make it absolutely clear that the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is describing would not generate a charge of causing death by careless driving, because such behaviour simply is not careless. Let us not create constructs that lead us to criticise this legislation for the wrong reasons.

Mark Harper: I thank the Minister for that intervention, and I do not want to make too much of the issue. Some Members have focused today on what happens as a result of an accident, but however appalling such results are for the families concerned, in making law and setting penalties we have to consider the motivation and behaviour of the driver, regardless of the consequences.

Si�n James: Like many Members present today, I have several high-profile cases in my constituency involving young people who lost their lives. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I cannot let it pass. In the past year, three young peopleLesley-Ann Morgan, her fianc and a friendlost their lives in a very serious crash in my constituency when returning from a happy family evening. The wedding of Lesley-Ann and her fianc had been soon to take place; now they are buried next to each other. Although their families have received a lot of support, they remain greatly concerned about the sentence handed out. The two young men in question, who were racing at speeds in excess of 70 mph in a 30 mph zone, could have been sentenced to 22 years imprisonment. We should never think that the families' feelings should not take precedence.

Mark Harper: I take that point, and it is clear that in such cases the right offence for someone to be charged with is dangerous driving, which addresses the question of intent. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned similar cases in his constituency, and his complaint seemed primarily to be about the sentences that the courts had chosen to impose. I do not know the details of those cases, but if the complaint is the sentences being chosen, giving the courts more options will not solve the problem, bearing in mind the fact that they are not taking up the options that they already have. The Crown Prosecution Service could perhaps do with some guidance in that regard.
	I welcome the fact that the Bill will allow an alternative verdict to that of manslaughter in cases where such a charge is brought; that is a sensible move. We should encourage the prosecuting authorities not simply to go for the easiest charge, for which they know they will secure a conviction. If they genuinely think that the circumstances merit the higher charge of causing death by dangerous driving, they should prosecute on that, rather than going for the easier charge. That would go a long way towards dealing with the admittedly tragic cases in which the CPS should have brought a charge of dangerous driving, but chose a different charge.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell also touched on enforcement. Unless there are sufficient traffic policemen to enforce offences, there is little point in having them. Speeding is a case in point. The cause of accidents in rural constituencies such as mine is often not speeding per se, but driving at inappropriate speeds. In other words, even if people are driving well within the speed limit, if they are approaching a bend, or there is poor visibility or dangerous weather conditions, they could still be driving inappropriately fast for the conditions. We can deal with that problem only if sufficient traffic officers are available to catch such people and advise them, or to take other action. Regardless of how many speed cameras there are, they are suitable only for catching people exceeding the speed limit. In many cases, driving at the speed limit is very dangerous, and we need to catch such people. That is not going to happen unless we have sufficient enforcement.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) mentioned making first aid training part of the driving test. The other aspect of an early response to accidents is ambulance response times, which will never be as quick in rural areas as they are in urban areas, even when the system is working well. We have had some very slow ambulance response times, which I have taken up with the Minister's colleagues. An initial speedy response is important, and it is worth considering how we could build first aid training into the driving test. We could also consider how we could encourage all drivers to be more skilled in that area, without making it compulsory.
	I, too, have found from observing the reaction of drivers as they are triggered, that vehicle-activated warning signs have been effective. The signs appear to have the desired effect and could be made more flexible. For example, my right hon. Friend suggested that the limits could be variable on busy roads and according to the weather conditions. Such signs are often better than speed cameras, and I commend them to the Minister.
	I welcome the Bill, although it can be improved. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments that I have madeI am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will do soand make improvements to make it an even better Bill.

Peter Soulsby: It is clear from contributions by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides that there is broad consensus on the majority of the Bill. However, as was evident from the contribution by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), which has been echoed to some extent by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), there are significant differences of opinion about the need for a specific new offence of causing death by careless driving and a potential punishment of imprisonment for up to five years.
	I shall concentrate on that issue, but before doing so I pay tribute, as others have, to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who has campaigned on it for a considerable time. She rightly drew attention to the feelings of the families and friends of people killed by those subsequently convicted of careless driving but who escaped appropriate penalties. The families and friends feel burning resentment at such sentences, and understandably so.
	I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who told us of cases in his constituency. I wish to draw attention to a particular case from mine because to some extent it forms a response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean by pointing up the gap between the present offences of dangerous driving and careless driving, and the penalties associated with them. The case illustrates why that gap must be filled.
	On the afternoon of 12 June 2004, 12-year-old Callum Deacon, from the Saffron lane area of my constituency, was out on his bike with friends in Asquith way. He was hit and, tragically, killed by a speeding motorcyclist. Significantly, the motorcyclist did not brake immediately, but carried on for a few hundred yards. Because he did not brake, there were no skid marks, so it was not possible to tell definitively at what speed he had been travelling.
	Incidentally, I was encouraged by the remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about the dangers associated with motorbikes. In our consideration of the Bill, we are right to focus not only on cars, but on motorbikes and to recognise the dangers for those who ride or are hit by them. Callum's body was catapulted 40 yd down the road, so we can well imagine at what speed that motor cyclist must have been going, but it was apparently impossible to prove his speed satisfactorily for the benefit of the courts to ensure a conviction for dangerous driving. The driver admitted careless driving, as he had not braked, but because there were no skid marks and because his speed could not be determined precisely, the judge very reluctantlyhe expressed his dissatisfaction at having to do thishad no alternative but to rule that there was insufficient evidence to convict for dangerous driving, although that had been the charge.
	As a result of the inability to convict for dangerous driving, the motor cyclist, who had admitted careless driving, was fined 2,000 and given a few points on his licence. To my mind and those of many hon. Members, that penalty was derisory. It is not surprising that Callum's parents, Mandy and Ivan, who had to wait 20 months for that verdict, described it as an insult to his memory. Of course, they know, as we all know, that nothing can bring Callum back, but they have, very much to their credit, actively campaigned to ensure that drivers who cause death by careless driving receive an appropriate prison sentence in future.

Mark Harper: I am listening very carefully, and the hon. Gentleman says that the difficulty of assembling evidence was the reason for sentence imposed in that case. If the motor cyclist was charged with causing death by careless driving, given the difficulties with the evidence and proving the speed and so forth, he would not be given a prison sentence, because the judge would not consider that he had the necessary evidence in front of him. The danger is that we may hold out the promise of something that simply will not happen. If the evidence had existed, we would not need the new charge, because the motor cyclist could have been convicted of dangerous driving.

Peter Soulsby: It is important to remember that the defendant admitted careless driving, and it was very clear, too, that the judge was most dissatisfied by the gap that existed between the maximum penalty that he could impose for the admitted offence of careless driving and the very high hurdle for dangerous driving, which he had been unable to establish. That gap is significant, and the Bill sets out to fill it.
	As I have said, Callum's parents know that nothing can bring him back, but their campaign has been actively supported by the community in the Saffron lane area and by the Leicester Mercury. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who has some connections with Leicester, paid tribute to that paper earlier, and I do the same: it is has actively campaigned on behalf of Callum's memory, and its headline, Insult to our boy's memory, is very much a reflection of local feeling on the issue. As is typical of the Leicester Mercury, it very much reflects the community that it serves.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend's constituency almost neighbours mine. Yes, the Leicester Mercury has an excellent record of campaigning on such tragic events. The Weir family of Donisthorpe in North-West Leicestershire, whose teenage son, a pedestrian, was killed late at night by a lorry driver who died of a heart attack some weeks later, were unable to get to the bottom of the evidence because of the lack of a charge. They will never know precisely and unambiguously what happened, because the inquest procedure was inadequate. They would certainly love to see such an offence on the statute book, although it will do nothing to ease their hurt.

Peter Soulsby: That exampleright hon. and hon. Members could no doubt give othersadequately illustrates the gap in the law and, I believe, the overwhelming public support there will be for the provision when the Bill is enacted, as I hope it will be.
	To digress, I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks. In addition to strengthening legislation, he drew attention to the need for the courts to take seriouslycertainly far more seriously than they appear to do on occasionthe causing of death by driving motor vehicles, whether it is by driving dangerously or, as the Bill provides, by driving carelessly.
	I welcome the proposals to toughen the range of penalties for careless driving. I hope that it will be possible in Committee to consider toughening the penalties still further. I know that Callum's parents would agree that the sooner the Bill is enacted and implemented, the better. From the experience of other hon. Members and the examples given, I know that, like me, many people disagree fundamentally with the hon. Members for Forest of Dean and for Epsom and Ewell. There is a need to fill the gap.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me have the opportunity to put on the record the position of the Liberal Democrats on death by careless driving. I hope he agrees that it should be possible in Committee to provide sufficient clarity for those of us who are not opposed in principle to the offence so that we can support the Government's position.

Peter Soulsby: I welcome that contribution. Concerns can be addressed in Committee. No doubt hon. Members who serve on it will want to return to the subject to ensure that they are.
	Callum's death is by no means unique or, I suggest, unusual. It is one of many cases in which justice has been denied to the friends and relatives of those killed by careless drivers. There have been far too many such cases. With some exceptions, the majority of right hon. and hon. Members will agree that we should quickly ensure that his death is one of the last cases when those who are guilty appear to escape proper punishment because of an unacceptable gap in the law.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), who spoke on the very subject that I want to talk about. After five hours of debate, I am glad that we have returned to that important issue. I also very much welcome the agreement between Front-Bench spokesman to move forward so that we find the right law to deal with the problem. The Government should be congratulated on introducing the Bill, but it needs improvement.
	I want to talk specifically about what has become known in my constituency as Alexine's law. Alexine's parents and family have taken a close interest in today's proceedings. There is a huge gap in the law between careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving. Let me spell it out: as the law stands, if someone pleads guilty to careless driving, the maximum punishment is a 2,500 fine and discretionary disqualification; the maximum punishment on conviction of causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine and mandatory disqualification.
	One problem with the current law is that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are likely to accept a plea of guilty for the offence of careless driving to be sure of a convictionthe very point that the hon. Gentleman made. In many of those cases, they should push for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. However, that means that more evidence has to be gathered and more work done, and there is a chance that the defendant will be found not guilty. That is why we absolutely need something in between. It is not acceptable for someone to take another's life, even if unintentionally, then plead guilty to careless driving in the knowledge that they will escape with just a fine. Off the record, the police say that the best way to murder someone is with a car, as the penalties are not very high, even if the perpetrator is caught. Such a statement may appear ludicrous in the light of the picture that I have painted but, sadly, it is the truth. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for the help that she has provided on the issue of causing death by dangerous driving. She has provided me with informative advice through letters and meetings, and I am grateful. I pay tribute, too, to Brigitte Chaudhry of RoadPeace who, with her colleagues, has worked hard to highlight the gap in the law.
	As secretary of the associate parliamentary group for justice for road traffic victims I have met and listened to the victims' families. I have been told of extremely sad and tragic cases in which young people have been killed, yet their killers have escaped with just a small fine because it is easier for the courts to prosecute someone who pleads guilty to careless driving than find the evidence to prosecute someone for causing death by dangerous driving. There are obvious budgetary pressures on the Crown Prosecution Service as well.
	I became aware of the huge gap between careless driving and the offence of causing death by dangerous driving when my predecessor, together with our excellent local newspaper, The Evening Telegraph, campaigned for a new law and a new offence of causing death by careless driving. On 7 June 2004, 17-year-old Alexine Melnik was tragically killed in a road traffic accident. Alexine, whose parents live in Rushden in my constituency, had her whole life to look forward to, but it was cut short. The person driving the car that caused the crash pleaded guilty to careless driving. He was given a 500 fine and he kept his licence; 17-year-old Alexine lost her life. Alexine was returning from Great Yarmouth as a passenger in a car travelling on an A road on a hot, sunny afternoon. Her car was hit from behindboth cars were travelling at a speed of about 50 mphand was knocked into the oncoming traffic. She lost her life, but the driver who caused the crash could not remember what had happened. He had been up since 4.30 am, and many people would conclude that he had fallen asleep at the wheel. There is clearly a case for stronger prosecution in such cases. It is not acceptable for lawyers in the House to say that there are sufficient laws in place, as those laws are not used. There is a gap, and we need to fill it.
	Alexine's family has been campaigning since her death for a change in the law so that a new offence of causing death by careless driving that attracts a custodial sentence can be introduced. As I said, the campaign is known locally as Alexine's law in remembrance of Alexine Melnik. If that law is introduced, although it will not bring her back, it will certainly mean that she did not die in vain. Mr. and Mrs. Peter Melnik and their family have campaigned tirelessly to raise the issue, and last March Mr. Melnik gave evidence when the previous Road Safety Bill was in Committee. The dedicated campaigning of the Melnik family and other families across the country who have been sadly affected by the gap in the law has made a genuine difference. It is their hard work, borne out of the tragedies that they have suffered, that has highlighted the issue to the Government and to Parliament. No one who heard Mr. Melnik's evidence could fail to be impressed by his integrity and determination to seek justice for families who have lost loved ones as a result of other people's bad driving. One can only marvel at the courage that Mr. Melnik and his family have shown.
	As a result of lobbying by road safety groups and affected families, the Home Office carried out a consultation exercise entitled Review of Road Traffic Offences Involving Bad Driving. I believe that it is right that the views of the public are sought before elected representatives make decisions. In fact, I have been running a campaign called Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden since 2001. I felt that politicians of all parties had become a little arrogant and out of touch, and that they were happier to preach to people than to listen to them.
	My campaign seeks the views of local people, groups and organisations, and then campaigns for change on their behalf. As part of the campaign, I contacted many people to make them aware of the Home Office's consultation, and urged them to submit responses in favour of the creation of a new offence of causing death by careless driving.
	The response was huge, with people from all political parties supporting a change in the law. In my response to the consultation, I stated that I felt it was imperative that the new offence of causing death by careless driving needed to be created. I also said that people so convicted should face heftier punishment, which should include a prison sentence.
	There are two reasons for that, and the first is that a tougher penalty will act as a deterrent. As Mr. Melnick said:
	We have a duty of care to others when we take to the wheel of a care. We cannot wash our hands of that responsibility when things go wrong and the outcome doesn't suit. If we are put through the pain and anguish of a proper and intensive investigation in order to establish . . . an understanding of what happened, I contend most people would consider it to be a minor inconvenience when compared to the trauma and finality of death.
	We are a civilised society and one of the cornerstones of it is the value and respect for human life. Just because we drive a car doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to uphold that value.
	Secondly, the new penalty will give the victim's family a sense of justice. Although a life cannot be brought back, a small fine imposed by the courts is no justice for a family who have lost a love one because of bad driving. I was pleased when the Minister of State intervened earlier to make it clear that, with this Bill, we are talking about bad driving, not about people who suffer a lapse of concentration or who swerve to avoid a deer in the road. They will not be prosecuted, but at the moment those who drive badly get away almost scot-free.
	I have raised this issue on many occasions in Parliament. In my maiden speech, I stated that I would do all in my power to bridge the existing gap in the law. I have addressed two oral questions to the Prime Minister, and several written questions to the Home Secretary. I was very pleased that, as a result of the Home Office consultation and the pressure brought to bear by MPs and the public, including Mr. Melnik, the Government introduced a new offence of causing death by careless driving in the Road Safety Bill.
	The provisions of the new law would have given the courts the option of handing down a custodial sentence of up to five years for someone found guilty of causing death by careless driving. That was a major step forward in closing the gap between the offences and the punishments of careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving.
	There is well documented opposition to the heftier punishments associated with the new offence. Members of the legal profession have concerns about a custodial sentence because of the issue of intent. There are also concerns that a custodial sentence could be given when a person has committed an unintentional act rather than a deliberate one. Some people say that no one gets into a car with the intention of killing someone, but I believe that the courts should be allowed to decide whether to dole out the maximum penalty on conviction.
	It may be that, in most cases, a prison sentence of five years is not appropriate, but we need to give the courts the option of deciding whether it is. They need the widest discretion, after hearing all the facts and evidence. We are always hearing from the judiciary that the Government dictate what they can and cannot do, but this Bill gives us an opportunity to give the courts the option of different punishments.
	When the House of Lords considered the Bill, it voted against a custodial sentence being handed out in a magistrates court, but the vote was very close. It was still in favour of the option of a custodial sentence if someone was convicted in a Crown court. I reiterate my belief that we should give both courts the option of different punishments. That includes a custodial sentence to be handed out on conviction. I urge the Government to adopt the right course of action and reverse the decision made in the House of Lords. I believe that the Secretary of State gave that assurance earlier.
	I would like the new offence of causing death by careless driving and the maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment to be part of the Bill. My main fear is that if the Bill is left as it stands, people will plead guilty to careless driving in the hope that their case will be heard in a magistrates court, where there is no chance that they will receive a custodial sentence. That would still result in a weakening of the law because defendants would know that if they pleaded guilty to careless driving, they could get off with a punishment that was much less severe than the one that they deserved. Given the tragic and sad stories that I have heard as secretary of the all-party group on road traffic victims, that is just not acceptable. I urge the House to give the courtsboth Crown and magistratesthe opportunity to impose a custodial sentence following a conviction for careless driving when a death has occurred.
	I congratulate the Government on listening to the concerns of victims of road accidents and the House of Lords on introducing the new offence of causing death by careless driving. The new law needs to be considered in detail in Committee. It is very encouraging that Parliament is working as it should. Both sides have concerns, but want to move things forward. I hope that Alexine's law passes on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who has campaigned on road safety since he came to Parliament, following the example of his predecessor. I will turn to his points a little later.
	We should remember that in 2004, 3,221 people were killed on the roadsjust under nine a dayand there were 280,840 casualties. If that number of people were killed on our railways, aeroplanes or ferries, there would be a national outcry and the issue would take over the press for weeks. If that number of people were killed in Iraq, there would be a similar response. However, that carnage takes places on our streets, outside our homes and in our country lanes and, for some strange reason, there does not seem to be a sense of national anger. The debate has been constructive and this is an instance of when politicians must take a lead and make tough, and sometimes unpopular, decisions in the interests of the whole community.
	The Opposition welcome much of the Bill as a genuine attempt to reduce the slaughter on the roads and will take a constructive and, we hope, helpful stance in Committee. Although we extend that broad welcome to the Bill, we feel that it could be improved and will aim to achieve that wherever possible. It could be more imaginative and, in places, tougher. In seeking to achieve that aim, we hold it as profoundly essential that the number of tragedies on the road is reduced. We have heard numerous cases from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Tragedy is an apt word, because behind the crude statistics, human beings are dying, often in horrendous circumstances. That should be no one's fate and we should wish it on no oneand no driver wishes it on anyone.
	There was a terrible story last Christmas involving the death of a 16-year-old girl who was thrown from a car that was being driven by her brother when it collided with another vehicle in Oxfordshire. One cannot begin to imagine the grief of the parents who have to live with that every day. In February, three people from one family died after their car came off the road and plunged into a nearby river. Last December, just a mile from that scene, a father and a seven-year-old also died. The local constable Mick McCready said:
	When you have just dragged three people out of a river, you want to find a way of stopping road accidents.
	That is what we have been trying to discuss constructively this afternoon.
	The problem involves huge numbers of people. The Minister has answered parliamentary questions that I have tabled. In 2004, there were 34.27 million substantive licence holders driving 25.75 million cars, 2.9 million vans and 434,000 lorries between them. It is pertinent to some of the clauses of which we strongly approve that the number of foreign-registered vehicles leaving the UK has rocketed from 671,000 in 1997 to 1,595,000 in 2004.
	We welcome measures in the Bill that bear down on serial offenders and some hard core offenders on matters such as driving uninsured vehicles. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for his powerful and clearly argued speech on a problem of which I was unaware. I hope that in Committee we and the Minister can agree on amendments that would resolve such an extraordinary problem and that would have the support of a number of police forces.
	As the answers to the parliamentary questions showed, the sheer number of drivers and vehicles requires drivers' co-operation and collaboration with the authorities in order to improve road safety. With such large numbers, coercion will not work. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) who, in a long and detailed speech, argued that we need flexibility. We wholeheartedly approve of the proposals for flexibility on points, for example.
	However, there are profound differences in the way in which we believe road safety should be approached in order to achieve our common objective. In some ways, the Bill is a wasted opportunity. In some respects it does not go far enough, and it fails to take a holistic view of the problem. There should be a change of attitude in the way that we deal with road safety. To achieve the aim of reduced casualties requires a partnership not just between the enforcement agencies and road safety professionals, but with all road users, especially drivers. Road safety should not be an us and them problem, with one group aspiring to impose duties and obligations on another. It should be a shared enterprise.
	That is where parts of the Bill are wrong. It follows a long line of legislation adding to the number of controls imposed on drivers and adding to the penalties. In this context, the vexed question of speed cameras arises. Ten years ago there were 200,000 speeding fines. That number increased to 2 million last year, bringing in more than 114 million. All those revenues should be spent on road safety improvements. Whatever our opinions on the use of speed cameras, they have caused ill-will outside the House and are widely perceived as revenue-raising devices, not road safety devices. By resorting to a combination of draconian law and indiscriminate enforcement, there is a risk that we are losing the hearts and minds of drivers, when we need their co-operation to help improve road safety.
	I have seen reports that 1 million drivers have six or more points on their licence. It was very honest of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) to admit that he was one of them. Those drivers are, on the whole, law-abiding, hard-working people trying to go about their daily business, who have been caught. I should declare that my wife gave me a GPS device which tells me where cameras are. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am in the happy position of not having any pointstouch wood. I believe that the device has made me drive better. Can the Minister clarify that devices that show where cameras are positioned will continue to be allowed?

Stephen Ladyman: Such devices will continue to be perfectly legal. I have one myself.

Owen Paterson: I am delighted at the cross-party consensus. We agree with the Government that devices that jam detection devices should be banned. We all have detectors in the front of our head. They are called eyes. The more devices there are to tell us where cameras are, the better. We want people to drive at the right speed and within the law.
	In 1829, Peel stated:
	Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
	I am worried that we will be at risk of losing respect for the law and voluntary observance if we have too much unfocused regulation. The resort must sometimes be to the stick, but it must also be to the carrot, and there is not much carrot in the Bill.
	On the stick, we will seek in Committee to toughen penalties still further. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned level crossings. Incredibly, the Shropshire Star has reported that in 2005, as I think he mentioned,
	73 offences were reported involving motorists ignoring the red flashing lights, driving over the crossing, zigzagging across as the barriers are in the process of lowering and even colliding with lowered barriers.
	Sadly, some of the incidents occurred in Wem, in my constituency. That is completely insane, idiotic and stupid behaviour, and the Opposition will table amendments to toughen up on people who break rules on level crossings.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned a terrible hit-and-run tragedy. Again, we will be looking for greater penalties for those who leave the scene of an accident in which an injury has occurred before the emergency services arrive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, there is currently an incentive for someone who might be over the alcohol limit to drive away from an incident as fast as possible to give himself time to sober up. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East raised a valid point: we must bring in tougher measures on hit-and-run drivers, who I think form part of the small hardcore that I mentioned earlier.
	Careless driving was mentioned by the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, who has done so much on this matter. He mentioned the terrible case of Alexine Melnik. The Opposition have been open about the fact that we have reservations about clause 20 as it stands, although we welcome clause 33. We will discuss the provisions in detail in Committee. I discussed the concerns briefly with my hon. Friend prior to the debate. As I understand it, in the Alexine Melnik case, the driverthey may or may not have gone to sleepwho drove into the back of the car in which she was a passenger, driving her into the path of an on-coming vehicle, had been up and working since 4.30 that morning.
	We will look hard at the problem in coming days and produce our own amendments, but I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the following. I have a definition of manslaughter from Webster's dictionary:
	The unlawful killing of a man, either in negligence or incidentally to the commission of some unlawful act, but without specific malice, or upon a sudden excitement of anger.
	Archbold gives a definition of dangerous driving that has two requirements:
	The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver
	and
	It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving that way would be dangerous.
	As a layman, it seems to me that getting up at 4.30 in the morning and working all day, apparently without a breakI am obviously not au fait with all the detailsis not behaviour that conforms to that of a competent and careful driver. I hope that the Minister will comment on whether a route forward might be to look at the laws of manslaughter and dangerous driving and see whether they can be enforced in a more effective manner.
	Our concern is that clause 20 as it stands hangs on the effect of the offence. If the person who was struck in an accident was a strong and fit middle-aged man, the incident happened in a town and the ambulance arrived within a few minutes and he was quickly taken to hospital, he could survive. In a rural area such as mine or the Forest of Dean, where an ambulance cannot be expected to attend within minutesI think that the minimum in my area is 18 minutesand the person involved is elderly and not terribly fit, exactly the same impact could cause a death. In one case, the circumstances would not lead to prosecution for death by careless driving, and in the other they would. I endorse the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell that we must examine the issue of severe injury.

Brian Iddon: I have cited the Haque case, which went from arrest on suspicion of manslaughter through the Crown court, where the charge of dangerous driving was dismissed, and ended recently with an acquittal in Chorley magistrates court. I have discussed that matter with the Crown Prosecution Service, which referred to the Kondeh Conteh appeal case. Kondeh Conteh was a man who was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and who got off in the Court of Appeal, where it was stated that the case did not meet the threshold for dangerous driving. The definition is difficult to interpret, and the precedent set by such cases has caused problems.

Owen Paterson: That intervention is helpful. Perhaps we can examine the definition of dangerous driving, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, to see whether we can plug that gap. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised examples, and there is clearly a problem.
	We are concerned in principle that the sentence will depend on the effect of the action, which could be capricious. As I have said, a fit young man hit at 30 mph in a town might survive because of an effective interventiona doctor or nurse might be nearby or the ambulance might be very quickbut the same impact would kill a person in the country. In such cases, someone will go to jail and someone will not.

Sally Keeble: When a stabbing takes place, the victim might or might not die, which determines what the perpetrator is charged with. We are considering the degree of care exercised in driving and the level of culpability, which is the difference between dangerous driving and careless driving. The problem is that the gap between dangerous driving and minor traffic offences is too great.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for that comment, but I am not sure whether the hon. Lady has answered my point. We acknowledge the existence of a problem, which we intend to address. We should probably move on from that point, because we intend to discuss the matter in detail in Committee. If a fit young man were hit by a car in a town as a result of dangerous driving, the impact may not kill them, but if they were hit in the country, where ambulances take longer to arrive, the offence would be triggered.

Sally Keeble: Like the hon. Gentleman, I read that point in the briefing. Whether a person is killed as a result of an offence depends on a series of issues, including their level of health, and the charge is determined by that outcome, so I am not sure whether his point holds.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady probably wants to include serious injuries, too.

Sally Keeble: rose

Owen Paterson: I will move on, because we will discuss the matter in detail in Committee. We have concerns about clause 20, which we want to discuss, but we acknowledge the existence of the problem and want to find a solution. We are not convinced that clause 20 is right, and we will table amendments that will hopefully lead to a constructive debate in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, South touched on 20 mph limits. Picking up on the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, we agree that there should be various speed limits and greater flexibility. I, too, have been impressed by the impact of self-illuminating signs that are triggered by vehicle movement, and I like the suggestion that more of those signs should be erected near schools. It is worth remembering that 70 per cent. of all accidents involving injury occur in urban areas.
	Fifty per cent. of deaths and injuries on roads occur on main roads, and many of those accidents are caused by car drivers overtaking lorries and creating head-on collisions. We should like to discuss raising the maximum speed for lorries on unrestricted single carriageway roads from 40 mph to 50 mph. That would lead to serious environmental gains. Moreover, it is ridiculous that modern lorries have to grind along in a lower gear given the new braking and suspension systems. There would be a safety gain because frustrated drivers would not be provoked to overtake at inappropriate moments.

Tom Harris: Might not that increase the likelihood of accidents? Car drivers will still inevitably want to overtake, but they will be given far less time to do so because the vehicle that they are overtaking is going faster, leaving a much smaller window of opportunity.

Owen Paterson: There is a sporting chance that the hon. Gentleman will get on to the Committee, and we can discuss this in some detail. I do not agree with him. I think that holding lorries back to 40 mph is frustrating for car drivers. The figures are pretty dramatic. As I said, 50 per cent. of deaths and injuries occur on main roads, and many of those involve head-on collisions.
	We are looking to toughen up our amendment on reflective markings. That would be very effective. Forty-five per cent. of all fatalities occur at night. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to the evidence from the University of Darmstadt that 37 per cent. of all side collisions occur because trucks were seen too late. The cost of reflective markingsabout 100 to 150is trivial compared with that of a new truck, which is worth 100,000 to 150,000.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr.   Scott) mentioned rudimentary first aid training. We are strongly in favour of introducing that in the theory part of the driving test. More than half of all road accident casualties occur before the emergency services arrive, so the actions of bystanders are vital. Research by Hussain and Redmond in 1994 showed that up to 85 per cent. of preventable pre-hospital deaths involve factors such as a blocked airway that could be avoided if people at the scene knew rudimentary first aid. According to the Red Cross, a person with his airway blocked will probably take about four minutes to die. That is far too short a time for an ambulance to arrive. All that one has to do, apparently, is to tilt the person's head backwards, although I am no medicI would not wish anyone to find me around at the time of an accident.
	Drivers under the age of 29 make up more than a third of those involved in accidents, and drivers between the ages of 17 and 20 are six times more likely than a driver over 40 to be involved in a collision that causes injury. It is interesting that some of the new EU countriesSlovakia, Slovenia, Latvia and Estoniahave practical first aid tests as part of the process of learning to drive. We support proposals to make a few simple changes to the theory test that would impart vital life-saving skills and be of real benefit.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) made some excellent points about young drivers. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) touched on the good work that is done by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. We would like to discuss the idea of having different tiers of licence and different tests so that there is, in effect, a graduation process. It is somewhat irrational that we allow young people, who have probably taken a few driving lessons and passed their test having had experience only in towns, to be suddenly let loose on motorways, with no limit on the horsepower of the car. As the institute says, there would be real benefits in people continuing to develop their driving skills after passing the basic test. It is well worth pursuing discussions with the insurance industry to see whether that would have a financial bite. As the Secretary of State said, people might be more inclined to take it up if there is a financial gain. We would therefore like to pursue that in Committee.
	We are not happy about the way in which the Bill treats training as an alternative to punishment. We believe that that is psychologically wrong. Driving should be perceived as a progression and people should be encouraged to take driving courses voluntarily. The psychology of making it an alternative to punishment is not quite right and we would like to discuss the matter further.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that, in Cheshire, the police have employed such a practice for a long time. Young drivers who experience minor incidents such as small bumps, in which nobody is hurt, and may have been prosecuted for a road traffic offence, are given the option of going on some driving awareness courses. That is a good idea.

Owen Paterson: That is a helpful intervention. Any sort of training or driving course is a good idea. However, it should not be viewed as a punishment, but a sensible action and a progression from the basic test. It should be like getting scout badges, with the benefit of reduced insurance. However, that is the sort of detail that we could discuss further in Committee. Looking at the clock, I see that I am beginning to run out of road, but I should like to make a couple of other points.
	The prohibition on the use of hand-held mobile phones while stationary in a traffic jam is absurd and we would like to raise that in Committee. There are safety gains to allowing people to use their phones in such circumstances. For example, a carer for an elderly person or a young child waiting to be picked up at school may need to be contacted or make contact. If the car is stationary with the hand brake on, or if it is in park, I do not understand why the phone should not be used.
	Motor cyclists should be allowed to use bus lanes. I do not understand why they would interfere with their function for buses. We would like to probe that in Committee.
	We are behind the Government in trying to improve road safety and we will co-operate in every way to introduce sensible and workable provisions. However, we want to improve the Bill. We will try to toughen some aspects and restore the balance in road safety regulation to ensure that ordinary people who happen to drive cars are fully engaged and committed to and co-operative in the urgent and vital task of reducing the carnage on our roads.

Stephen Ladyman: It is good to follow the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). From his tone and his description of the way in which Conservative Members will handle the Bill, we can all look forward to an enjoyable and constructive Committee stage. I suspect from the comments this afternoon that we will spend more time in Committee discussing the things that are not in the Bill than those that are. However, we must wait and see.
	One day, I may write a book on parliamentary strategy. If I do, I shall dedicate a chapter to the tactics that the Opposition have to adopt when they agree with the Government. It is not the Opposition's job to agree with us or give us an easy ride. Broadly, they have three strategies. The first is the missed opportunity strategy, whereby they accuse us of not doing a pile of things that we could have done. The second is the Trojan horse strategysuggesting that we intend to do something that we have not included in the Bill. The third is the devil-in-the-detail strategy, whereby they say that they will explore the measure with us in Committee. All three were thoroughly deployed this afternoon. The Liberal Democrats have a fourth strategy, which is to say that every argument has two sides and they agree with both.
	Before I deal with specific points, let me start with the comments of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). He made some sensible points but appeared to try to build a case that the thrust of the Bill was not where it should beon the hard-core offender. He gave a series of examples of actions that are clearly against the law now. The problem is not to make them against the law because they are already illegal, but enforcing the law. The Government share the hon. Gentleman's interest in enforcing the law as it stands. We work hard and closely with the police on such issues. When someone is an outlaw, the answer is not to create more law but to catch the outlaw and enforce existing law.

Chris Grayling: rose

Stephen Ladyman: Let me make a bit of progress. I judge from the mood of the House that people can smell their dinners and that they do not want to be here all night. I shall make some progress before I give way.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about people failing to stop after an accident, but I did not understand whether he was arguing that no law existed in that regard, or that the penalties were insufficient. I can tell him that failing to stop after an accident can already attract a six-month prison sentence, a 5,000 fine, a mandatory endorsement and a discretionary disqualification. It is already a serious offence, and clearly the law has to be enforced.
	The hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members mentioned railway crossings. Several provisions on that matter were put into the Bill in the House of Lords, and we understand their purpose. However, we are not sure that they have really hit the mark or that they are necessary. There is clearly a case for the existing law on who is responsible for making improvements at level crossings to be clarified, and we intend to table amendments to that effect.
	However, most of the debate on that subject today was about the punishment for jumping red lights at level crossings. We shall consider those points carefully and discuss them in Committee to see whether there is an issue there. I saw just such an incident a few weeks ago when I was waiting in a traffic queue at a level crossing in my constituency. It was a level crossing with double barriers, but the diagonal single barriers came down first, and someone drove down the outside of the queue of traffic and gambled on being able to cross the line before the second set of barriers came down. That is clearly the kind of idiotic behaviour that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) described earlier, and the law on that has to be enforced. At the moment, however, the penalties for that kind of behaviour are the same as those for going across a red light anywhere. If we are going to change that penalty, we need to widen the debate and ask whether the penalty for crossing red lights in general are tough enough, rather than limiting the discussion to level crossings. That is something that we shall consider carefully and bottom out in Committee.
	The new offence of causing death by careless driving that we want to create was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms   Keeble), who has campaigned on that issue for many years. The tragic cases outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East explain more eloquently than I possibly could why we need to create the new offence.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough made particular sense when he described the gap between the present offences of careless driving, which attracts a 2,500 fine and a possible bannot even a mandatory oneand of dangerous driving, which attracts a mandatory ban, a substantial custodial sentence and other possible penalties that are available to the courts. That gap is clearly too big, and it needs to be filled. We shall have a debate about exactly how we structure that offence and the penalties that should apply, and I hope that the Conservatives will then withdraw any objection that they might have in principle. I hope that they will be convinced that the new provision can work in practice and that they will support us. We will certainly work hard to bottom that out with them in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned a number of issues. He was the first to talk about the Red Cross in regard to first aid, although the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and one or two others also mentioned it. Let me remind the House that the theory test already includes a series of questions on first aid, so anyone who wants to be sure of passing that test needs to have swotted up on first aid. It is certainly the case that one does not automatically get a question on first aid because questions are chosen randomly from a body of questions available for the test. However, the questions are there, and one has to swot that area of expertise to be sure of passing the test.

Tom Brake: I understand that something like 20 out of about 1,000 questions are on first aid. There is potential for the number of question on first aid to be increased, and we could look to see whether there is a case for adding something about first aid to the hazard perception test.

Stephen Ladyman: I am not sure how one would introduce first aid into the hazard perception test, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be possible to increase the number of questions in the theory test and therefore increase the chance of getting a question on first aid. I have already put the Driving Standards Agency and the Red Cross together to discuss that possibility. I have also said that if we can find some way of providing training materials, perhaps a DVD on first aid, we will look at ways of distributing it with the theory and hazard test DVDs that we sell through stationers around the country. We charge about 8 for those DVDs, and the theory and hazard tests can be practised on one's computer. I am prepared to look at whether we can distribute some first aid material through that route. However, I am not convinced of the need for a mandatory test.
	The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned retro-reflective markings. My officials have given me a note suggesting what to say on that, and, rather injudiciously, they have suggested that on reflective tape I should say that I am reflecting. The clause introduced in the Lords requires the fitting of retro-reflective tape to comply with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulation 104 specifications. We have not yet decided what action will we take in respect of the clause, but such regulatory powers already exist so it is not needed. The use of retro-reflective tape on all road vehicles is already permitted under the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, as amended in 2005. We will require it on all new vehicles in the United Kingdom as soon as the European regulatory process will allow us to do so, so we can make progress on this without legislation.

Tom Brake: Will the Minister tell the House what additional information he will receive and how he and his officials will come to a conclusion about whether the Government want to support this clause?

Stephen Ladyman: My view at the moment is that we do not need this legislation. We can already do this on a satisfactory time scale that will not place additional costs on industry. The hon. Gentleman said that the measure would cost only 100 per rig, but if there are million rigs in the country that is an additional cost to industry of 100 million. At the moment, we are double checking whether we need legislation in order to be able to do this on an appropriate time scale.

Owen Paterson: The amendment that we tabled in the Lords applies to new trucks and rigs. However, the Minister commented that the provision might be contrary to European law. Can he elaborate on that?

Stephen Ladyman: I do not mean that the provision is contrary to European law. My understanding is that this will eventually be mandated by European law. Therefore, if we wait for that to take place there will not be an additional burden on our haulage industry compared with the rest of Europe. We will all be on a competitive, level playing field. However, it may be 2010 before the provision comes in, and that is the issue on which we need to agree.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire raised a number of points, including a plea for sympathy for the owners of heritage Bentleysof which there are not many in the estates of Ramsgate, but I am sure that those of my constituents who have a heritage Bentley tucked away somewhere will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He also referred to British summer time, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), and one or two other Members. I was surprised to hear so many Scots Members saying that they would be keen to see change in one form or another. We have been quite open about the research that we produced and there is no question but that a change would be of significant road safety benefit, but that is not the only issue to be taken into consideration. There would be difficulties for people in the north and for industry, agriculture and others. We have to be careful about leaping into that morass.

Greg Knight: May I put two points to the Minister? First, my comments about historic vehicles apply just as much to Morris Minors as to vintage Bentleys. Secondly, on British summer time, will the Minister reflect on whether the Government would be prepared to provide the House with an opportunity on Report for a free vote on the issue?

Stephen Ladyman: No, I cannot promise that. I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about heritage Morris Minors, but equally that the appropriate example from his constituents' point of view was a Bentley.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned alcohol levels. He is a long-term campaigner on road safety and he made a powerful case, but I am not persuaded that the time is right for a 50 mg limit, because we are not yet enforcing the 80 mg limit properly. The police need to be able to target their fire on serious offenders at the 80 mg limit. Once the enforcement rate is high at that level, there may be an argument for a future Government to reduce the limit to 50 mg, but that time has not yet arrived.
	My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean spoke about young drivers. I am looking into the matter and just this week held a meeting with the Driving Standards Agency to discuss our programme. A few years ago, we consulted widely about young driverswhether we wanted provisional licensing, or P platesand the feeling was very much that that was not the way to go. In this country, our strategy has always been that a person should be a fully competent driver to pass the test and obtain their licence. Staged or progressive licensing is not appropriate. Before someone goes on the road, they should be a competent driver and pass the test.
	The pass plus programme is a slightly different issue and we need to consider how to incentivise people to participate. We are talking to insurance companies, but even if they gave discounts I am not sure how much that would help, as many young people go on the road for the first time on mum and dad's insurancethe kid will not have an incentive to do pass plus unless they are paying for their insurance from their own pocket. A broader campaign of education, targeting resources on younger drivers, looking into training for younger drivers and working with approved driving instructors to provide young drivers with the necessary experience might be more fruitful lines to explore, and I am talking to the DSA about those ideas.
	Hon. Members raised a number of other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned road humps. However, I have to say that if somebody drives so fast over a road hump that they are injured, I have not the slightest bit of sympathy for them. The road hump would be doing its job by slowing them down. Road humps are always installed in consultation with the emergency services and various designs are available to meet different needs.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) spoke about sleep disorders such as tiredness and sleep apnoea. One aspect of being moved from Department to Department is that Ministers' crimes tend to follow them around. When I was a health Minister, my hon. Friend's predecessor initiated a debate on sleep apnoea to which I responded, so I am well aware of the issue. Primary care trusts are responsible for ensuring that services are available for the care of people with sleep disorders. We have launched a prominent campaign, advising all drivers to take at least 10 to 15 minutes' rest every two hours. Only last week I made a pitch to an informal council of transport Ministers in Austria, suggesting that we launch a trans-European campaign on driver tiredness. I think that that would be an appropriate campaign for Europe to focus on.
	Both the hon. Member for North Shropshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South mentioned speed cameras. My hon. Friend wants the cameras to be hiddenpainted blackwhile the hon. Gentleman wants a better partnership with the motorist.
	As I told my hon. Friend earlier, the road camera programme is aimed at areas where there is overt enforcement. We want people to know that there is enforcement in those areas, because we want them to control their behaviour at known blackspots. In addition, the police retain all the powers that they have always had to carry out covert enforcement. We encourage them to use those powers. We certainly do not want to legalise devices that would let people know where the police are covertly enforcing speed limits. We do not want radar detectors to be legalised, for example.

Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman: I will give way briefly, but I want to end my speech after that.

Owen Paterson: If overt enforcement is intended, would it not be better for the cameras to be painted bright yellow?

Stephen Ladyman: Absolutelyand they are. Not only are they painted bright yellow; we insist that they are placed where people can see them. Not long ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement about the way in which we would change the use of cameras and the use of money. That is relevant to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that money raised by the cameras should be spent on road safety and similar initiatives.
	We have made it quite clear that people should know where the cameras are, and should be able to see them. We will change the way in which speed limits are indicated where enforcement takes place, so that people are clear about the speed at which they ought to be driving.

Jim Devine: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Ladyman: Very briefly.

Jim Devine: The police in my area advertise in the local paper where the speed cameras and speed traps will be. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a good idea?

Stephen Ladyman: I am happy for my hon. Friend's local paper to advertise the location of the speed cameras and the areas of enforcement. What I do not think it will have advertised is where the police are undertaking covert surveillance, because the police will not have told the paper where that is happening.
	We are not in the business of trapping motorists. We are in the business of trying to create a partnership in which motorists understand that we are serious about enforcement and about their observing speed limits, but equally serious about the need for the limits to be practical. They must understand that we are serious about road safety, and that we are not just after their money.
	I believe that my right hon. Friend's statement represented a significant step towards that understanding. I also believe that all road userswhether they are pedestrians, cyclists or motorists; whether they are driving to work or driving for pleasurewill see real benefits in the Bill. As it makes its sedate way towards its Committee stage, I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

ROAD SAFETY BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Road Safety Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 20th April 2006.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

ROAD SAFETY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Safety Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(1) expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act; and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided in consequence of any other Act. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

ROAD SAFETY BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Safety Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the making of the provision for financial penalty deposits and provision for imposing fees and charges, and
	(2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on motions 6 and 7.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Dogs

That the draft Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Offences (Use of Fixed Penalty Receipts) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Competition: Maritime Transport

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16106/05 and Addendum 1, Draft Council Regulation repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 4056/86 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 to maritime transport, and amending Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 as regards the extension of its scope to include cabotage and international tramp services; and endorses the Government's intention to support the Commission's proposal to repeal Regulation 4056/86, whilst encouraging the Commission in its ongoing discussions with the liner shipping industry and its customers.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	  
	Croft Road-Hay Lane Link

Anne Snelgrove: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 450 residents of Wroughton and Croft roads in my constituency. It expresses opposition to the proposal of a link between Croft road and Hay lane with a tunnel under the M4, which will have a direct connection to junction 16 of the M4. I am grateful to Charmian Spickernell and all those who have worked to collect the signatures and organised protests against the tunnel.
	The petition reads:
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to consider the plight of the residents of Wroughton and Croft Road and others in the Borough of Swindon and elsewhere who fear the consequences for traffic and carbon emissions and endeavour to ensure that the alternative route crossing the railway and linking back to Swindon with shorter local journeys and the opportunity for a public transport interchange is now considered.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray c.
	To lie upon the Table.

Train Services (Maidenhead and Twyford to London)

Theresa May: I am pleased to present the save our trains petition, signed by 786 people in the Maidenhead constituency and others. The petition has 500 signatures that were collected by the Maidenhead Advertiser. I am grateful to it for its support for the save our trains campaign. I am also grateful to Angie and Michael Scott, Adam Hale and Emma Hobbs, who all worked to collect signatures for the petition. In addition to those 786 people, 961 petitioners have signed the on-line petition, making a total of 1,747 signatures, against proposed cuts in train services from Maidenhead and Twyford to London.
	The petition reads:
	The Petition of constituents of Maidenhead and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners oppose the proposed cuts in the number of fast and semi-fast trains between London and Maidenhead and Twyford. The Petitioners further declare that the Department of Transport, Network Rail and First Great Western should recognise the importance to local people and local businesses of good transport links for Maidenhead and Twyford.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Transport to recommend that Network Rail and First Great Western abandon the planned cuts in services and reinstate fast and semi-fast services in the December 2006 timetable, thereby ensuring that the Maidenhead area continues to enjoy good train services that benefit local people and local businesses.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Ambulance Services

Janet Dean: I am pleased to present a petition containing 497 signatures from residents of Mayfield and Ellastone in my constituency.
	The petition
	Declares that the petitioners are concerned by the plans to reorganise ambulance services and believe that they will result in a significant drop in the standards of emergency medical care in their rural part of Staffordshire.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of State for Health Services:
	1. to guarantee that the high standards of emergency medical care the petitioners enjoy at present will be maintained;
	2. to guarantee that community first responders will continue to attend all the types of incidents they attend now without any reduction in the drugs they are allowed to use to help patients or to protect themselves; and
	3. to exclude Staffordshire Ambulance Service from the proposed reconfiguration programme until such time as its high standards have been matched across the remainder of the proposed West Central region.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Train Services (London to Bedwyn)

Richard Benyon: I present a petition on behalf of rail users in west Berkshire and the Newbury area, who are outraged at the loss of rail services from London to Bedwyn. There are further signatures from people who are alarmed at the congestion that these cuts in rail services will cause in Newbury, Reading, the M4 and beyond.
	The petition
	Declares that the fast and semi-fast services between London and Bedwyn, which served the stations in between, were a great benefit to local people and businesses.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to abandon plans for cuts in services between London and Bedwyn.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

TERMINATOR SEED TECHNOLOGY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Anthony Steen: Before I speak on this matter, I want to say what a pleasure it is to see the Minister of State in his place, particularly given his interest in these matters. Putting up a Minister of State in an Adjournment debate also shows that the Government see this as an important matter, so I am very grateful that he is here[Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman is not a Minister of State, he jolly well ought to be.
	I want to discuss the Government's position on continuing the moratorium on the commercial use and field-testing of terminator seed technology, and what the Minister hopes that the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity will achieve when it meets in Brazil on 20 March. The moratorium was agreed in 2000, and there is concern that it will be overturned. If it is amended to permit case-by-case assessment, its very purpose will be in jeopardy.
	It may be useful if I explain to the House what terminator technology is. Terminator technology, or varietal genetic use restriction technologiesknown as V-GURTs for shortproduces seeds that grow into plants that have sterile seeds, often referred to as suicide seeds. The plant itself appears normal, as do the seeds that it produces, but if planted they would never germinate.
	I do not want to be drawn into a debate on genetic modification technology; I want to concentrate exclusively on terminator technology. Of course, GM technology can be used to modify seeds to accomplish many different outcomes, such as higher crop yields, greater disease resistance or drought resistance. An example of the latter is planting in the Sahara crops that do not need much water.
	I was one of the first Members of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you recollect, to raise the issue of GM cropsby way of a debate in this Chamber in July 1998. I was then co-chairman of an all-party group on GM, and I want to make it plain that this very important subject is not the exclusive prerogative of either the Green party or the Liberal Democratsstrangely, I cannot see any of them in their places this evening, such is their concern.

John Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this very important topic and I, too, am delighted that the Secretary of State, as I think he is, is in his place[Interruption.] Oh, wellwhoever. We are delighted to have a Minister of such seniority to answer these questions. However, he should be aware that this is not simply an issue for rural areas. Although there are probably only three farms in the whole of Orpington, my constituents are as concerned about this issue as constituents in rural areas are. The people of Orpington fully support my hon. Friend's suggestions.

Anthony Steen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; at least I have support on the Conservative Benches. It is worth commenting on the fact that there are no Liberal Democrats here, but I will not dwell on the point any longer, because the House will recognise it as a matter of fact. My hon. Friend is right to say that interest in this issue is not peculiar to the people of south Devon, although many of them are interested in it. It should arouse worldwide interest, and certainly interest in urban seats just outside London. I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend for being in his place and for raising that important point.
	Terminator technology is just one form of genetic modification, but many believe it to be the most significant development because it alters seeds' fundamental characteristictheir self-reproducing nature. The Government announced on their website on 21 Februarywhen, incidentally, the House was in recessthat
	an application for a GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) incorporating GURTs would be dealt with in the same way as any other GMO.
	I believe that to be a wrong assessment. V-GURTs have a unique property. They are not just any type of genetic modification; they have ramifications that could affect the entire planet.
	Why would anybody want to introduce terminator technology? There are two possibilities. They may want to prevent the contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops, thus resolving a fundamental concern about GMOs. Or, as most people suggest, the technology is designed to ensure greater profits for seed manufacturers by requiring new seeds to be purchased annually. However, the seed industry should not be painted as the villain in this picture. I have no interest in seed companiesalthough I might like one, I do not have onebut they are commercial businesses that have a duty to their shareholders and employees to make profits. Their decision-making process should, and largely does, focus on what is in the best interests of the company, rather than any wider audience.
	The decisions are taken within a framework of national and international law. Monsanto, the very large company that trades in seeds, has made a welcome decision not to use terminator technology, but the decision on what technology is acceptable is properly the remit of elected representatives in Parliaments such as this, and of Governments. It is Governments' responsibility, not the companies', to determine the appropriate use of innovative and controversial technology.
	If terminator technology will prevent GM contaminationthat was an issue in my constituency in 1998, when the first GM trials took place outside Totnes and resulted in many people destroying crops and being sent for trial in Plymouthwhy do environmental groups not hail it as a great invention? It is partly because so little is known about the precise nature and behaviour of the technology. As Dr. Srinivasan and Professor Thirtle recently said:
	The nature of interaction of terminator varieties with other crops and species is not known. It remains to be assessed whether terminator varieties are, accidentally or otherwise, capable of rendering the seeds of (adjacent) non-terminator varieties also sterile.
	Gene silencing and gene instability could result in the seeds behaving in unexpected and unpredictable ways. Some scientists have speculated that the process will render only 80 to 85 per cent. of the so-called suicide seeds sterile, leaving 15 to 20 per cent. carrying the gene in an inactive form. That clearly poses the danger of the gene spreading into other crops through cross-pollination. It has also been suggested that it would be impossible to ensure that all seeds were treated with the chemicalfor example, ethanolrequired to switch on the terminator gene. That obviously creates the potential for wide margins of error that could result in the unintended spread of those GM seeds.
	In the worst-case scenario, terminator seeds would have more than the intended consequences of producing sterile plants. The technology could leak out and prove much more dangerous than the spread of other types of GM contamination. If the technology proved imperfect and spread, farmers could end up unwittingly planting sterile seeds that would diminish their crop yield, with disastrous consequences. How can we consider lifting the moratorium on that technology, when the evidence is so vague?
	Let us suppose that the technology worked perfectly and produced seeds that were always sterile. Should we then give it the go-ahead? Should the Government go to Brazil and say, Whoopee, we've got the answerlet's go ahead?
	I have no doubt that the Minister is aware that at least 1.4 billion peoplenearly double the size of the population of Indiamainly in developing countries, currently practice seed saving from one year to the next. That has been practised since crop civilisation began many hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is not only cheaper than buying new seeds every year, but allows the development of regional varieties particularly adopted to local conditions. Obviously, that practice would not be possible if people started out with a suicide seed. The seed collected from the crop would be useless and new ones would be needed.
	However, so long as farmers can choose not to buy such seeds, it could be suggested that there is no reason why the market should not determine the commercial success of suicide seeds versus fertile seeds, whether GM or non-GM. Could countries that wish to ignore such technology simply do so? The concern is that if all big multinational seed producers decide to use terminator technology and produce only suicide seeds, there is a real possibility that farmers may not have a choice about whether to buy into that technology in the future. The choice would have gone. The danger is that companies might produce only seeds with agronomic characteristics that also come packaged with a terminator gene. It might be that not only all new seed varieties came packaged with a terminator gene, but seed companies modified all their seeds, so that all existing varieties became terminator seedssuicide seeds.
	It is worth remembering that innovation and development in seed technology are essential if we are to feed the world's rapidly increasing population, which it is estimated will reach 10 billion people in 2070. As Monsignor Bruce Kent said, the train has left the station; there is no way of stopping the population of the globe doubling by 2070. Therefore, we need seed companies to continue with research and development, and they need to be able to recoup their research expenditure from sales.
	Terminator technology has been a solution to the weaknesses of patenting law and its enforcement. It is clear therefore that if the moratorium on terminator technology is lifted, those companies will have understandable reasons to make the most of its obvious advantages for profits, particularly if we do not improve patent law. That could well result in the end of the local adaptation of varieties and community-based seed, which would clearly have adverse consequences for biodiversity.
	In any case, agriculture is not a precise science, and it is inevitable that terminator seeds and normal seeds might become mixed up over time, particularly on small-scale holdings in developing countries, where land is not clearly separated by substantial fences or hedges. In such circumstances, accidental mixing or physical contamination could easily occur, and it would have devastating consequences if, as a result, the crop was significantly less than what had been planned.
	It takes no great stretch of the imagination to envisage the horrendous food shortages and famines that could occur as a result in countries where food is already in high demand. In Africa, 90 per cent. of all seed planted is from farm-saved sources, and the vast majority of farmers are subsistence farmers. Thus those who live at subsistence level are most vulnerable and most at risk. The Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum said in September 2005:
	We do not trust regulations or seed companies to ensure that GURTs seeds do not accidentally contaminate or get mixed in with conventional seed, or planted by mistake. But farmers planting sterile seed face disaster and hunger.
	For such reasons, many developing countries are vehemently opposed to that technology. A number of African non-governmental organisations released a statement on 2 February 2006, calling for the moratorium to be strongly reaffirmed, if not made concrete in an outright ban. The effect of terminator technology on developing countries is particularly worrying in the light of concerns that even if individual countries decide to ban the use of terminator seeds, the Government's institutions and structures in those countries are often not sufficiently well established to be able to enforce such a ban, and thus it may well creep in by the back door.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Anthony Steen: In conclusion, I do not believe that terminator technology should be ruled out for ever. We cannot say that. What we do know is that there is insufficient evidence on how the technology would operate in practice, when one takes into account the possibility of gene silencing and gene instability, and cross-pollination if some seeds that carry the gene turn out to be fertile.
	As things stand, there is little to recommend the commercial use of so-called suicide seeds when we consider the likely impact on developing countries, which are especially vulnerable to any crop failure. If terminator seeds become mixed up with normal seeds, the scale of the catastrophe could be horrific. Once the technology is let out of Pandora's box, there is no putting it back. We must be more certain of the consequences before we release the genie from the bottleif the House will excuse the mixed metaphors. We can guess, however, that the consequences could be far-reaching and dramatic. This could be another historic turning point, as significant as the agricultural or industrial revolutions. It could be a major technological change in society and the world.
	I urge the Minister to reaffirm the Government's commitment to a precautionary approach and not accept a case-by-case assessment at the meeting tomorrow to determine the EU's position on terminator technology at the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity in Brazil later this month. I hope that he can give me a robust reply, because at least his party and mine have shown, by being here, our interest and concern about this new and quite frightening technology.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and thank him for the usual generosity and kindness displayed in his introductory remarks. I hope that he and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) will not feel slighted if I disabuse them of the notion that they have either a Minister of State or a Secretary of State to reply to this important debate; I am afraid that they have a mere Under-Secretary. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, who usually speaks on such matters. He is in Brussels at an Environment Council. My fellow Under-Secretary of State also cannot be here, but he will attend the forthcoming conference in Brazil on behalf of the Government.
	I listened with great care and interest to the hon. Member for Totnes. He is right to draw attention to the subject in light of the forthcoming meeting on the UN convention. I am grateful to him for giving the Government the opportunity to put one or two things on the record, because there has been misleading reporting in the past week or so in the national press.
	Terminator seed technology, which the hon. Gentleman described well, is still at the concept stage. It will not be with us in the foreseeable future. As he acknowledged, the leading biotechnology company Monsanto has said that it has no plans to market terminator seeds. The Government are not aware of any commercial activity in terms of that development anywhere in the world.
	As with all new technologies, terminator seeds present both risks and potential benefits, as the hon. Gentleman also acknowledged. Those need to be carefully considered before countries agree to approve them for use. The issue, which he outlined in detail, of farmers saving seed from their harvest to grow the following year is clearly a consideration, for some countries more than others. So, too, is the potential benefit of having the means to reduce the spread of novel genes from genetically modified crops. As for the international position, no country can be forced to accept terminator seeds. The Cartagena protocol on biosafety under the UN convention on biological diversity was developed to ensure that all countries that are signatories to the protocol can make their own decisions about whether to authorise a genetically modified organism for import.

Anthony Steen: That is not quite the point. If the major seed companies that control 80 per cent. of the world's seeds produced only terminator crops, it would not be long before there was nothing else to buy, as there would not be a choice. The question whether or not a country signs up to the protocol is a red herring.

Ben Bradshaw: It is not entirely a red herring. There are no companies, as I said, that are even thinking about commercialising such seeds. The strength of the countries that have come together under the Cartagena protocol make it very unlikely that the scenario about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned will develop. As I was saying, the protocol takes a strong precautionary approach, which means that countries can decide not to allow imports, even if there is lack of certainty about the extent of possible adverse effects. The protocol allows socio-economic considerations to be factored in.

John Horam: Is the Minister saying that a country must agree to the introduction of the seeds before they can be sold commercially there?

Ben Bradshaw: That is absolutely right. The Cartagena protocol encourages all parties to share information on potential impactssocio-economic information as well as scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on genetically modified organismswhich will assist in informed decision-making. There has been talk in the media recently of the moratorium on the use of terminator seedsindeed, the hon. Member for Totnes referred to it. The House may find it helpful if I read out the decision made at the fifth conference of the parties.

Anthony Steen: There is no point in one African country deciding not to go down that road, as the seed will just blow over its border. That is the problem.

Ben Bradshaw: That is exactly why it is important that those countries have come together in the protocol. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, developing countries in particular share common concerns. It may be helpful if I read out the decision, because it has been suggested that there is a moratorium, but that is not quite the position. Paragraph 23 of decision V/5 by the convention on biological diversity recommends that
	in the current absence of reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by Parties for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing, and for commercial use until appropriate, authorized and strictly controlled scientific assessments with regard to, inter alia, their ecological and socio-economic impacts and any adverse effects for biological diversity, food security and human health have been carried out in a transparent manner and the conditions for their safe and beneficial use validated. In order to enhance the capacity of all countries to address these issues, Parties should widely disseminate information on scientific assessments, including through the clearing-house mechanism, and share their expertise in this regard.
	Later this month, the convention will meet, as the hon. Gentleman said, to consider a progress report by its scientific sub-group before deciding whether a further decision should be made. I am grateful for the opportunity to stress that the UK Government's position has not changed, although misleading press reports have given the impression that it has. We would like to continue with the decision reached by the convention in 2000.
	As the hon. Member for Totnes knows, EU legislation is the competent legislation on these matters as far as the UK is concerned, and he was right to point out that it ensures that there are very strict controls on the general use of GMOs. No GMOs can be marketed until they have been approved by a rigorous assessment procedure. Decisions on each GMO are considered separately against a list of criteria laid down in the legislation. Like any GMO, one that makes use of terminator technology would be approved only if the evidence showed that it would not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
	Like the hon. Member for Totnes, the Government recognise the importance of constantly expanding our understanding of GMOs. To keep abreast of possible developments in that and related areas, we have commissioned a study to review the various technologies that might be used to achieve biological containment of GM or non-GM crops. The study will review the current state of play in the development of GURTs and will be published later this year.

Anthony Steen: So can I tell my constituents that the Government support a continuation of the moratorium in terminator technology seeds? Will the Government argue for that position in Brussels tomorrow, so that the EU will adopt it in Brazil later this month?

Ben Bradshaw: As I have suggested, it would not be quite right to describe what we have as a moratorium. The situation is a bit more nuanced than that, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to send the quotation from the 2000 agreement that I have just read to the House. The UK Government's position has not changed, as some in the media have tried to suggest. The hon. Gentleman could tell his constituents that we are maintaining our precautionary approach, but it would not be wholly accurate to say that a moratorium, in the sense that the term is generally understood, was in place.

David Drew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate. In Brazil, will the UK be negotiating in its own right? Alternatively, will Austria, which holds the EU presidency, be the main negotiator? I should not be unhappy about that, as the Austrians have a fairly robust view of GM, but who will negotiate in Brazil?

Ben Bradshaw: We will arrive at an agreed EU position, but I do not expect that it will be different from the one that I have just outlined. However, my hon. Friend is right to seek clarification. In all areas where the EU has competence, member states reach an agreed position that is used, on our behalf, in negotiations. My hon. Friend will be at the talks, and I am sure that he will play an active part. He is right that the EU presidency has control of the negotiations, and the same was true when we had the presidency.

David Drew: Although there may be agreement at the Brazil talks about terminator technology, does my hon. Friend agree that, as yet, there is no pan-European agreement in respect of GM?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, but there is still an EU policy on GM. The Austrian national policy may have slight differences of nuance when compared with ours, but my hon. Friend knows very well that, in Brazil, the Austrian presidency will represent the EU position, not the Austrian view.
	I reassure the hon. Member for Totnes that our independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment produced guidance on best practice in the design of genetically modified plants in 2001. That guidance covers the possible use of GURTs, but it does not endorse any particular GURT technology. It includes an examination of environmental implications, including the possible benefits of technologies to produce sterile seed and to minimise transgene expression, although some of that remains at an early experimental stage. The Committee recognised the concern that exists about GURTs, but it did not discuss the socio-economic and ethical issues in its guidance.
	In conclusion, I assure the hon. Member for Totnes and the House that the Government will continue to adopt a precautionary approach to GM crop developments, including any related to terminator seeds and gene use restriction technologies in general. Our clear priority will remain the protection of human health and the environment.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Seven o'clock.